Notification and Resource Consent Report for a ... · Kate Brill- Principal Engineer, ... Aru Chelliah- Principal Engineer, Watercare Service David O’Reilly - Contaminated Land

R/JSL/2016/788 and REG/2016/922– Overlea North Page 1

Notification and Resource Consent Report for a

Discretionary Application for a Qualifying Development

under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act

2013 (HASHAA)

Application Description

Application Number: R/JSL/2016/788 and R/REG/2016/922

Applicant's Name: Housing New Zealand

Site Address: 149, 161 and 163 West Tamaki Road, Glen

Innes,

2A, 2B, 4, 6, 8 8A and 12 Overlea Road, Glen

Innes

4, 6, 6A, 8, 10 Leybourne Circle, Glen Innes

Legal Description: 149 West Tamaki Road (Lot 3 DP 43138)

161 West Tamaki Road (Lot 1 DP 90134)

163 West Tamaki Road (Lot 10 DP 43138)

2A Overlea Road (Lot 1 DP 199939)

2B Overlea Road (Lot 2 DP 199939)

4 Overlea Road (Lot 3 DP 199939)

6 Overlea Road (Flat 1 DP 105914 on Lot 69

DP 43138 and Lot 70 DP 43138)


DP 43138 and Lot 70 DP 43138)

8A Overlea Road (Flat 2 DP 105914 on Lot 69

DP 43138 and Lot 70 DP 43138)



DP 43138 and Lot 70 DP 43138)

4 Leybourne Circle (Lot 2 DP 105218)

6 Leybourne Circle (Flat 1 DP 182649,

Carport 1 DP 182649, Shed 1 DP 182649 on

Lot 1 DP 105218)

6A Leybourne Circle (Flat 2 DP 182649,

Carport 2 DP 182649, Shed 2 DP 182649 on

Lot 1 DP 105218)



Name of Special Housing Area

in which QD is located:

Northern Tāmaki SHA (Tranche 2)

Site Area: 9,469m2

Proposed Auckland Unitary

Plan (PAUP) Zoning:

Mixed Housing Suburban

Precinct: Tāmaki Precinct

PAUP Special Areas and

Overlays etc:

Natural Resources: Stormwater Management

Area – Omaru Stream, Flow 2

Operative Plan Zoning: Residential 5

Proposal Demolition the existing 15 dwellings on the

subject site; and construct 36 new dwellings

and one studio (Lot 127); and undertake a 36

lot residential subdivision incorporating the

proposed dwellings, two jointly-owned access

lots (JOAL), and associated infrastructure and

associated works.


Figure 1- Aerial Photograph Identifying Application Site and Showing Surrounding Area

Figure 2- Aerial Photograph Identifying Application Site (Acquired from Applicant's AEE)

General Location of Subject Site


Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents)

The following information has been provided:

Application Form and Assessment of Effects prepared by Tattico Limited, titled ‘Overlea

Neighbourhood Qualifying Development for Overlea North Housing New Zealand

Corporation, Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects’,

dated 26 February 2016.

Specialist Reports

Specialist Report Title Prepared by Rev Date

Infrastructure

Report

Overlea Redevelopment –

Overlea North Design Report

aurecon 22 February

2016

Traffic Impact

Assessment

Overlea Neighbourhood

Glenn Innes (North) Traffic

Impact Assessment

Traffic

Planning

Consultants

(TPC)

22 February

2016

Preliminary Site

Investigation

Overlea Redevelopment -

Preliminary Site Investigation

aurecon - 23 March

2015

Draft

Contaminated

Site

Management

Plan

Overlea Redevelopment -

Draft Contaminated Site

Management

Plan

aurecon 0 23 March

2015

Design

Statement

Overlea South– Design

Statement

Studio

pacific

architecture

23 February

2016


Architecture Drawings prepared by Studio Pacific Architecture



Engineering Drawings prepared by aurecon


Additional Information

S92 Response Letter prepared by Ross Cooper dated 29 March 2016, with attachments (as

referenced above)

The information has been reviewed and assessed by the following specialists:

Jian Chen- Senior Subdivision Specialist, DPO

Shane Maelzer - Development Engineer, DPO

Maree Gleeson- Principal Engineer, Stormwater Unit

Matt Riley- Urban Design Consultant- Barkers & Associates

Kate Brill- Principal Engineer, Auckland Transport

Aru Chelliah- Principal Engineer, Watercare Service

David O’Reilly - Contaminated Land Consultant , Focus Environmental Services Ltd.

Proposal, Site and Locality Description

Proposal

The proposal is for joint land use and subdivision consent for the demolition of all existing

dwellings on the subject site; and to establish 36 new dwellings and one studio unit; and for a 36

lot residential subdivision incorporating 36 dwellings and studio unit, two jointly-owned access

lots (Lot 100 and Lot 200) and associated infrastructure and associated works which has been

set out in full in section 8 of the AEE submitted by prepared by Tattico Ltd dated 26 February

2016.

The subject site encompasses 13 existing lots containing 15 existing dwellings.

Associated infrastructure and earthworks are included in the proposal to enable the

development. The proposed development is an average density of 1 dwelling per 256m2 over

the entire development site. The proposed layout is shown on the extract from the scheme plan

below:


Figure 3- Proposed Scheme Plan

Site and Surrounding Environment

Tattico, on behalf of the applicant, Housing New Zealand, have provided a description of the

Overlea Neighbourhood, surrounding locality and application site in Sections 3, 4 and 5

respectively of the AEE dated 26 February 2016. Having visited the site on 15 March 2016, I

concur with this description and it is accepted and adopted by Council.

Background

The applicant has undertaken extensive pre-application meetings with the Development Project

Office (DPO) throughout 2015 / 2016 to arrive at the application (revised) as lodged. Following

lodgement, the application documents have been modified in response to feedback from the

DPO. The proposed development is the third stage (north) within the Overlea neighbourhood,

which has been targeted in the PAUP for redevelopment.

Overlea Framework Plan (Council reference: R/LUC/2014/5367), was approved on 29th June

2015.

Resource consent (R/JSL/2014/5371) was approved in December 2015 for 54 new dwellings


and residential lots at Overlea Central which is located immediately to the south of the

application site.

Resource consent (R/JSL/2015/4815; R/REG/2015/4816) was approved in March 2016 for 45

new dwellings (47 total) and residential lots at Overlea South which is located to the south of the

application site.

Qualifying Development Criteria

The site is located within a Special Housing Area (SHA) – Northern Tāmaki, as named by the

Order in Council of 29th October 2013 which requires a Qualifying Development (QD) to be a

maximum of 6 storeys (27m height); requires a minimum of 4 dwellings to be constructed;

requires a percentage of ‘affordable houses’ to be provided for developments of 15 dwellings or

more as referenced in the Order in Council, and in accordance with the principles of Housing

Accords And Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA).

This application provides for a total of 36 new dwellings and a studio unit with a mix of

typologies over an area of 9,469m2. None of the dwellings will exceed 6 storeys or 27m in

height; and the required percentage of affordable houses will be provided for this development

by way of retained affordable dwellings (minimum 10%). It is therefore noted that the proposed

QD is in accordance with the above criteria. This QD application was lodged concurrently with

the preceding Overlea Framework Plan application (Council reference: R/LUC/2014/5367),

which was approved on 29th June 2015.

In respect to the affordable housing component, page 18 of the AEE prepared by Tattico notes:

As part of HNZC’s redevelopment programme for the Tāmaki area it is anticipated that

while enhanced levels of social housing are sought, a blind mixed-tenure model is to be

followed. Certain proportions of the new dwelling may be sold to the public as either

‘affordable housing’ or at market rates. As such, it is noted that only a portion of the 47

[sic] dwellings will be social housing through HNZC / TRC, with a number of dwelling to be

sold off at market rates.

While the exact split between and location of HNZC houses / affordable / market rate has

not been decided at this time, HNZC confirms that the Unitary Plan requirements for the

10% affordable housing will be more than met. The social housing function provided by

HNZC is considered to address the affordable housing requirements of the Unitary Plan,

and at this stage it is anticipated there will be approximately a 30 / 70 split between social

housing and ‘other’, including affordable and market rate sales to the public.


Reasons for the Application

Resource consent is needed for the following reasons:

Relevant Operative Plans

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

Auckland Council and government entered into the Auckland Housing Accord on the 3rd October

2013. Under section 10 and 11 of HASHAA, the Accord established Auckland Council as an

authorised agency under the HASHAA, and outlines how Auckland Council will achieve the

purpose of the HASHAA, and increase housing supply and affordability over the next three

years. In exercising functions as an authorised agency, the Accord directs that any SHA is not

subject to the operative RPS or any other operative district plan, and that applications for

qualifying developments will be determined under the relevant provisions of the notified

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The provisions of an operative plan are a matter that regard

must be had to, under section 34(1)(d)(i) of HASHAA. However, relatively little weight has been

given to those provisions in light of the hierarchy of relevant matters described in section 34(1)

and the Accord which is considered to be a relevant matter for consideration under s 104 of the

RMA. Particularly relevant aspects of the operative plan have been identified and commented

on where appropriate.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) 2013

Chapter H – Auckland-wide Rules, Rule 3.1 – Street trees

The removal of any street tree by a party other than Council or its agent triggers

assessment as a discretionary activity. The applicant proposes the removal of two

street tree located on the Overlea Road road berm and two street trees on the

Leybourne Circle road berm immediately adjacent to the application site to facilitate the

construction of vehicle crossings, and accordingly, resource consent for a discretionary

activity is required.

Chapter H –Auckland wide Rules, Rule 4.14.2.1 Flow

Impervious area greater than 25m2 in a SMAF 2 area that meets the hydrology mitigation

requires controlled activity consent.

Chapter H – Auckland-wide Rules, Rule 5.1 - Subdivision

Activity Table 2 – Subdivision in accordance with an approved land use resource

consent is a restricted discretionary activity. The proposed subdivision forms part of

a combined land use consent for the construction of 36 new dwellings and two JOAL’s.

Note 1: For the purpose of the above reason for consent, the applicant has requested

that the Council determine the land use components of this application in the first

instance, and follow that with a determination of the subdivision component.


Note 2: In accordance with the requirements of Rule 5.2.2.3.1 (Development Controls for

Restricted Discretionary Activities), the application site is subject to the provisions of two

zones. However, the Framework Plan has approved an approach to apply the Mixed

Housing Suburban zone across the application site, and as such the application has been

assessed against the applicable controls for that zone overall.

Chapter H- Auckland Wide

Infrastructure, Earthworks Rule 4.2.1.1 – Residential Zones

Earthworks greater than 2,500m2 and 2,500m3 undertaken in a residential zone requires

restricted discretionary activity consent. It is proposed to undertake 3,200m3 of bulk cut

and 2,700m3 of bulk fill over an area of 1.05 hectares. Accordingly, resource consent for

a restricted discretionary activity is required.

Chapter H: Auckland-wide Rules, Rule 4.5 – Contaminated land

A detailed site investigation of the application site is currently being undertaken. The

applicant seeks resource consent for a discretionary activity for the discharge of

contaminants not meeting the restricted discretionary controls of the Unitary Plan.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Land Use and Development Controls Modifications

Applications to modify land use and development controls are to be assessed as a restricted

discretionary activity under Part 3: Chapter G, Rule 2.3.2. Resource consent is required to

modify the following Land Use and Development Controls, to the extent detailed in Attachment

G of the AEE prepared by Tattico and summarised below:

Chapter H – Auckland-wide

Infrastructure, Transportation Rule 1.2.3.1.1 – Traffic generation

Any proposed for 30 or more dwellings triggers an assessment of the likely traffic

generated by the development. The proposal seeks resource consent for 36 residential

dwellings and one studio unit over 36 lots (21 additional dwellings and one additional

studio unit and 24 additional lots), and as such, requires restricted discretionary

activity consent.

Infrastructure, Transportation Rule 1.2.3.3.1 – Design of parking and loading spaces

All parking spaces within the proposed development that are located on a driveway in

front of a garage or dwelling that are within a required yard trigger assessment as a

restricted discretionary activity. A total of 20 parking spaces sit within a required yard,

and triggers consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

Infrastructure, Transportation Rule 1.2.3.3.4, Reverse Manoeuvring

On site manoeuvring is required for all sites which obtained access form a district arterial

route. Reverse manoeuvring will occur from Lot 136 onto West Tamaki Road which is a


district arterial route. This triggers consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

Infrastructure, Transportation Rule 1.2.3.3.6 – Formation & gradients

All parking areas will be formed, drained, provided with all-weather surface, and with a

gradient of not more than 1 in 20 along its length. However two parking spaces (Lot 103

and Lot 108) fail to meet the gradient requirement, and accordingly, resource consent for

a restricted discretionary activity is required.

Infrastructure, Transportation Rule 1.2.3.4 2– Width and number of vehicle crossings

The maximum width of vehicle crossings is 3.5m. The vehicle crossing serving Lot 115 is

6.0m in width. Accordingly, resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is

required.

The proposed vehicle crossing for Lot 122 is not 2m clear from the adjacent crossing

serving Lot 124. Accordingly, resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is

required.

Infrastructure, Transportation Rule 1.2.3.4 3– Width of Vehicle access and Queuing

The proposed JOAL servicing Lots 128-135 does not comply with the minimum 5.5m

width. Accordingly, resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required.

Chapter I – Zone Rules, Residential Mixed Housing Suburban

Part 3: Chapter I, Rule 1.7.10 – Outlook Space

Ten dwellings infringe the Outlook Space control relating to the Principle Living Area, as

detailed in Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. Accordingly, resource consent

for a restricted discretionary activity is required.

Part 3: Chapter I, Rule 1.7.12 – Outlook Living Space

The dwelling on Lot 102 does not meet the minimum 4m x 4m dimension for outdoor

living space as detailed in Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. Accordingly,

resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required.

The dwelling at level 1 on Lot 127 does not meet the minimum balcony area that is

required to be accessed from a principal habitable room. Accordingly, resource consent


Part 3: Chapter I Rule 1.7.13 – Dwellings fronting the street

A number dwellings do not meet the minimum glazing percentage requirements of the

zone) as detailed in Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. As such, resource

consent for a restricted discretionary activity is required.

Residential Zones, Development Controls, Rule 1.7.15 – Fences

A number dwellings do not meet this control as the proposed fences exceed the

maximum 1.2 metre height limit for front yards, as detailed in Attachment G of the AEE


prepared by Tattico. As such, resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity

is required.

Residential Zones, Development Controls, Rule 1.7.16 – Garage

The A2 building typology (8 total) do not meet this control as the garages exceed a

portion of the front façade of the dwelling in excess of 40%, as detailed in Attachment G

of the AEE prepared by Tattico. As such, resource consent for a restricted

discretionary activity is required.

Residential Zones, Development Controls, Rule 1.7.18 – minimum dimension of principal

living rooms and principal bedrooms

A number dwellings do not meet this control as it applies to bedrooms, as detailed in

Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. As such, resource consent for a

restricted discretionary activity is required.

Residential Zones, Development Controls, Rule 1.7.21 – Storage

Two dwellings (lot 65 and 69) do not meet the minimum storage requirements, as

detailed in Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. Accordingly, resource consent


Part 3: Chapter I, Rule 1.7.22 – Universal Access

The development control requires that 20% of dwellings meet the Universal Access

requirements of the Mixed Housing Suburban zone. A total of 6 out of 36 (17%) of the

proposed dwellings fully meet Universal Access requirements for developments of this

nature. Accordingly, resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is

required.

Chapter K – Precinct Rules Tāmaki Precinct

Land Use Control, Density, Rule 2.22.4.1

Any application for four or more dwellings requires resource consent for a restricted

discretionary activity. A total of 36 dwellings are proposed across the Overlea North

development, and as such, resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity is

required.

Part 3: Chapter K: Rule 5.3– Maximum Impervious Area

A number of dwellings infringe the maximum impervious area control. The specific

infringements are set out in Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. Accordingly,


A number of dwellings infringe the minimum landscaping area control. The specific

infringements are set out in Attachment G of the AEE prepared by Tattico. Accordingly,


Tāmaki, 1 Activity Table 1


Any land use and / or development complying with an approved Framework Plan

requires resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity. The proposal is in

accordance with the approved Overlea Framework Plan, and accordingly, assessment

as a restricted discretionary activity is required.

National Environmental Standard ("NES")

The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to

Protect Human Health 2011 (NES) applies to certain activities proposed on a piece of land,

which has been or potentially has been impacted by previous or current activity or industry that

was included in the Ministry for the Environment’s Hazardous Activities and Industries List

(HAIL). The site has been identified in the geotechnical report as having unrecorded fill on the

site, which may or may not contain contaminants. Since the applicant has not provided a

Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) due to the presence of the existing dwellings on the site, the

proposal is a discretionary activity under the NES (regulation 11).

Overall the application is assessed as a discretionary activity.

Notification Assessment

Under Section 29 of HASHAA, the council may only notify an application to adjacent owners,

relevant infrastructure providers and requiring authorities.

However, the council must not notify an application if it would not have been notified under the

RMA or PAUP or if written approvals have been obtained from all adjacent owners, relevant

infrastructure providers and requiring authorities.

Adjacent land is not defined in HASHAA (or the RMA) however the term “adjacent” has been

defined in case law as meaning “lying near or close; adjoining; continuous; bordering; not

necessarily touching though this is by no means precluded”. The land adjacent to the land

subject to this application comprises of the following properties:

Table 1:

Address Legal description Written approval provided

by owner?

137 West Tamaki Road Lot 1 DP 41864 No






145A West Tamaki Road Lot 6 DP 41864 No





155B West Tamaki Road Lot 2 DP 199897 No

155C West Tamaki Road Lot 3 DP 199897 No





1 Leybourne Circle Lot 107 DP 43138 No




9and 9a Leybourne Circle Lot 111 DP 43138 No


1 Overlea Road Lot 75 DP 50754 No



7 and 7A Overlea Road Lot 1 DP 182668 No




10 and 10A Overlea Road Lot 68 DP 43138 No

3 Elstree Ave Lot 435 DP 38962 No




Infrastructure providers with assets on, under or over the subject site or adjacent land; and

requiring authorities with designations within the subject site or adjacent land includes the

following:

Table 2:

Infrastructure provider / Requiring

authority

Relevant asset and location Written approval

provided?

Watercare Services – water and

wastewater

No*

Auckland Transport West Tamaki Road, Overlea

Road, Leybourne Circle and

Elstree Ave

No*

Stormwater Unit Stormwater service within road

reserve

No*

Vector Power lines No

Telecom/Chorus Phone lines No

*These infrastructure providers / requiring authorities have provided their comments to this (?) application and have not raised any issues.

Notification Assessment and Recommendation

Not all written approvals have been provided. Council must decide if the application should be

notified to those persons/infrastructure providers who have not provided their written approvals

(refer Table 1 and 2). The following matters may be used to guide this decision.


Purpose of HASHAA and the Auckland Housing Accord

Relevant rules, policies and objectives of the PAUP

Effects on the environment

Notification tests of s95E, RMA - Consent authority decides if person is affected person

Infrastructure provision and readiness

Having regard to the above and after an analysis of the application, including any proposed

mitigation measures and specialist reports, the adverse and positive effects of the activity

including an assessment against the relevant objectives and policies of the PAUP are identified

and discussed below.

It is noted that the submitted AEE for the proposal prepared by Tattico Ltd dated 26 February

2016 provides a thorough assessment of the actual and potential effects of the proposal and will

be referenced and referred to as appropriate below.

Land use

The intention to use the site for residential re-development has been identified under both the

Operative Auckland Council Plan and the PAUP, with the site zoned for residential purposes

under both plans. This part of Tāmaki forms part of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company area

which seeks to regenerate and transform the area with additional housing specifically identified

in this location.

To respond to this regeneration and level of change, this area is located within the Tāmaki

Precinct in the PAUP. The Precinct provisions seek to ensure that the planned regeneration

provides residential growth and intensification required to transform the area, with this growth

focussed on achieving high quality and integrated development.

The application site has been identified under the Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan as

one of the first sites for new housing, and as such falls within the area of the approved Overlea

Neighbourhood Framework Plan (R/LUC/2014/5367). The Framework Plan assessed the

additional density allowed for under the PAUP precinct provisions, the overall transport and

stormwater strategy for the area, and some development control modifications. The proposal is

broadly consistent with the approved Framework Plan.

The proposed development and related subdivision scheme seeks to accord with the PAUP

provisions through the efficient use of the site through the building layout, landscape and

dwelling typologies seeking to respond positively to each to achieve a coherent and integrated

development of the site. Furthermore, the Neighbourhood Plan has identified the integrated

approach to the re-development of the area for residential intensification, and the proposal is in

broad accordance with the approved Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan.


It is considered that the principle of developing the site for residential purposes in the manner

proposed forms part of the aspirations of Council Plans, which seek to provide for the

transformation of the Tāmaki area through the integrated and efficient use of land in a quality

compact city model.

Furthermore the proposed development will provide a compatible land use and density to

resource consent (R/JSL/2014/5371) was approved in December 2015 for 54 new dwellings

and residential lots at Overlea Central which is located immediately to the south of the

application site; and resource consent (R/JSL/2015/4815; R/REG/2015/4816) was approved in

March 2016 for 45 new dwellings (47 total) and residential lots at Overlea South which is

located to the south of the application site.

Affordable Housing

The Auckland Plan (AP) identifies that affordable housing is a core priority for Auckland in terms

of housing supply, choice, affordability and quality. The PAUP seeks to continue this priority by

ensuring efficient use of land; providing a range of housing choice and requiring quality homes

that meet the needs of low to moderate-income households. This directly aligns with the

purpose of the HASHAA, which seeks to enhance housing affordability by facilitating an

increase in land and housing supply.

The scheme is a Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) re-development and a core

component of the Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan for regeneration is to increase the

supply of housing; improve housing quality; and increase the diversity of housing types to

enable choice and affordability in the market by providing housing along the full housing

continuum.

The applicant commits to provide a minimum of 10% affordable dwellings, and although the

exact number has not been stated, it is likely that a 30/70 split between HNZC retained

dwellings for community social housing purposes, and dwellings to be sold to the private

market. The final locations of the affordable units are yet to be confirmed.

Notwithstanding, the applicant has designed the scheme to ensure the affordable dwellings are

tenure blind so that the affordable units are not discernible within the overall development or

within the wider neighbourhood. It is considered that the proposal would not result in any

adverse effects in terms of the provision of affordable housing across the site. Rather, it is

considered that the scheme provides an efficient use of the finite HNZ land resource and is an

important part of the regeneration of the Overlea neighbourhood area.

It is considered that the proposal would also result in a number of positive effects given the

number of dwellings to be provided within the Overlea neighbourhood, which will enable an

overall increase in supply and choice of affordable housing in an area where there is a known

housing need. Furthermore Tattico (on behalf of the applicant) have confirmed that the

proposed housing has been designed to achieve a Homestar 6 rating. This will ensure the


housing is designed in a sustainable manner that reduces energy use and provides warm/dry

housing for future residents.

Infrastructure

A clear underlying principle of the HASHAA is that the SHA’s and associated QD’s are required

to be adequately serviced by infrastructure. An infrastructure report has been submitted in

support of the proposed development which identifies that there is suitable infrastructure to

support the intensification sought and has suggested an approach to stormwater devices across

the site to ensure suitable detention and retention of water in respect of the PAUP Stormwater

Management Area Flow (SMAF) requirements.

The application has been submitted with an Infrastructure Report, titled ‘Overlea

Redevelopment – Overlea South Design Report’, prepared by aurecon and dated 17 November

2015. This report sets out the proposed approach to earthworks, wastewater, water supply,

stormwater, flooding and overland flowpaths, services, public roading and private shared

access.

The proposals have been reviewed by Watercare, Auckland Transport, the Council’s

Stormwater Unit and Central and DPO Development Engineering teams and no concerns have

been raised.

It is noted that both Vector and Telecom have existing assets within the adjacent road reserve in

respect of power and phone services. It is not considered that these infrastructure providers are

affected by the proposed development and easy connections can be made to these services via

the existing infrastructure.

The site is located with a PAUP Stormwater Management Area and as a result will require the

installation of new stormwater infrastructure on the site in the form of retention and stormwater

management to comply with the PAUP hydrological requirements for the retention and detention

of stormwater flows on site. The application has adopted a “Toolbox Approach” for the

storrmwater management for the site.

In addition to these devices the local stormwater pipe network within the road reserve needs to

be upgraded to service the increased density anticipated in the Tāmaki Precinct by the PAUP.

The applicant and the stormwater unit have come to an agreed approach on these necessary

upgrades which are identified within the aforementioned aurecon report. A condition has been

included (and endorsed by the applicant) which requires the pipe upgrades occur prior to the

connection and occupation of the new dwellings.

It is noted the Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan included a condition of consent which

limits the additional impervious area within the Tāmaki North Stormwater Catchment to be

limited to 4ha until such time as the mitigation works are complete within Elstree Reserve and

Tāmaki College to ensure no further downstream flooding. It is noted that the proposal


development takes the additional impervious area over the 1.5ha threshold by 0.01 ha or

100m². Councils’ Stormwater Unit have reviewed the proposed impermeable area and have

stated: “Therefore the building consent for Block C can only be issued after the downstream

daylighting project is complete or alternatively the design the on-site retention be modified to

incorporate detention to pre-development flows for the block.”

The proposal will also connect to existing wastewater and water lines that either run through the

site or are located within the road reserve. There is capacity on these lines to service the

proposed dwellings and Watercare have reviewed the proposal and provided their approval in

principle.

Council’s specialists have suggested a number of conditions regarding the Engineering Plan

Approvals for the infrastructure on site, which have been endorsed by the applicant and form

part of the application.

Consequently, there is considered to be suitable stormwater, wastewater and water supply and

other infrastructure to service the development. It is not considered that any infrastructure

providers or adjacent sites would be affected in terms of infrastructure capacity or provision.

Landform and Earthworks

The PAUP anticipates that earthworks are essential to the development of urban land, but that

the works need to be suitably managed to ensure that adverse effects associated with sediment

runoff to receiving environments (streams and the coast) are avoided.

The proposal will require earthworks across 9,469m2 of the site. The site does not directly adjoin

any water body, however the stormwater infrastructure within the road reserve connects to the

local stream and therefore sediment control management is necessary to mitigate adverse

water quality effects.

The Infrastructure Report, titled ‘Overlea Redevelopment – Overlea North Design Report’,

prepared by aurecon and dated 22 February 2016 has included a detailed Erosion and

Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to address the construction activities associated with the

proposal. The ESCP provides details and measures to minimise surface erosion and the

discharge of sediment laden water from the site during and immediately following earthworks for

the development.

The applicant has proposed the installation of silt fences, runoff diversion channels and

sediment decants in accordance with Auckland Council’s Technical Publication 90 ‘Erosion and

Sediment Control’, to ensure that sediment is appropriately managed. Subject to the installation

of the sediment and erosion control measures, the effects on the receiving environment will be

appropriately managed. The sensitivity of the receiving environment to the adverse effects of

the discharge will not be compromised given the level of the discharge and appropriate on site

management techniques.


It is considered that these measures will ensure that any effects on adjacent sites are suitably

mitigated and that the aspirations of the PAUP are achieved for the site during construction

works.

Contamination

A Draft Contaminated Site Management Plan (DCSMP) has been lodged with the application

and this has identified potential contamination on the site due to:

Fill material of unknown origin at depths between 0.5 and 0.9 metres below ground level

across the development site that was inferred to be part of the original subdivision

earthworks ;and

Council’s Consultant Contaminated Land specialist, Mr David O’Reilly, has assessed the

proposal against the relevant discretionary activity provisions of the National Environmental

Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

Regulation 2011 and has confirmed that: “The effects of the potential contamination can be

mitigated and the site is made safe for the proposed subdivision provided the following

suggested conditions are implemented.” These conditions have been reviewed and agreed by

the applicant. Following this technical assessment any adverse contamination effects are

assessed to be less than minor and can be appropriately mitigated.

In addition Council’s Contaminated Land Specialist (Regional-Discharge), Marguerite Nakielski

has also reviewed the proposal in respect to discharge of contaminants and has stated “It is

considered that any effects of the proposed activity on the environment as identified above will

be appropriately managed and mitigated, based on undertaking the proposed measures to

avoid, remedy or mitigate effects in accordance with the application documents.” These

conditions have been reviewed and agreed by the applicant. Following this technical

assessment any adverse discharge of contaminant effects are assessed to be less than minor

and can be appropriately mitigated.

Traffic and Roading

The PAUP adopts an integrated approach to transport and land use to ensure that adverse

effects of traffic generation on the transport network are managed and to ensure that an

integrated transport network, which aligns with intensification and efficient use of land, is

encouraged.

Furthermore, the PAUP objectives also require that the parking spaces and access locations be

suitably designed and located to contribute to a quality built environment, and to ensure that the

safety and efficiency of both pedestrians and vehicles are considered when assessing place

making, movement and access function across a site.


The submitted AEE assesses in sections 11.4.3, and within 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the

appended Traffic Impact Assessment Report, prepared by Mr Todd Langwell of Traffic Planning

Consultants Ltd, that any effects on traffic will be less than minor. I agree with the comments

raised in these assessments, in particular I consider that the proposed development has sought

to integrate successfully into the existing street network to create a connected roading pattern

with the proposal minimising the number of proposed vehicle crossings onto Elstree Ave where

practically possible. It is noted Auckland Transport have sought the vehicle crossings from Lots

71 and 72 be paired or an alternative vehicle cess from Elstree Ave be provided for Lot 102 to

accommodate a bus stop. I do not consider this to be practical in this instance as this will

involve the internal configuration of the units needing to be designed resulting in a poorer level

of amenity for each dwelling / lot. Furthermore, I consider the proposed vehicle crossings will

result in less than minor adverse effects given there remains sufficient space between the two

crossings for pedestrians.

It is acknowledged that on-site manoeuvring is not possible given the site layout and available

front yard areas, and that reverse manoeuvring will occur directly onto West Tamaki Road,

Elstree Ave, Leybourne Circle and Overlea Road. Mr Langwell has assessed this, and

concluded there would be a negligible effect on the safe functioning of existing and proposed

road network. Mr Langwell has confirmed that appropriate sight distances will be maintained to

ensure pedestrian and traffic safety effects are minimised.

Mr Langwell has confirmed that vehicles reversing onto Overlea Road and, Leybourne Circle

are roads with low traffic volumes with low speed environments and that the sightlines will

enable reverse manoeuvring to be undertaken in a safe manner. I concur with this assessment.

In respect to Elstree Ave and West Tamaki Road these are existing situations and the proposal

will be reducing the number of crossings from these roads. The number of crossings have been

minimised by increasing the number of access points off the proposed JOAL. This is considered

acceptable.

It is acknowledged that 2 car parking spaces have proposed gradients of 1 in 10, which is

greater than the 1:20 permitted car parking space gradient.

A full assessment of these infringements has been undertaken by Tattico and Traffic Planning

Consultants, and I concur with the conclusions that the proposed car parking and vehicle

access design and layout will not result in adverse effects on the safe functioning of the roading

network, or cause safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

In terms of visitor parking the PAUP mixed housing suburban zone does not identify a specific

requirement in this regard; however it is considered that that there is sufficient on street parking

within both the proposed roads and surrounding road network to cater for any visitor demand

that may occur.


Mr Langwell has made an assessment of the sight distances across the intersections of the

proposed roads, and determined there is sufficient sight distances available to exceed the

Austroads guidelines, which identifies that there is suitable visibility and sightlines for both

vehicles and pedestrians to ensure that vehicles entering and exiting the roads can occur in a

safe manner. Auckland Transport’s Consents Specialist, Kate Brill supports the proposal with

regards to the location of the crossings and JOAL’s, subject to recommended conditions of

consent requiring details to be provided with the engineering plan approval. These have been

endorsed by the applicant and form part of the application.

The design of the proposed jointly-owned access lots and parking within the development site

has incorporated measures to ensure slow speeds and good visibility to drivers with low fencing

and landscaping, narrow width where possible, vehicle crossing entries to the accessways from

the roads, pedestrian demarcated surfacing and integrated surface treatment. This design

approach will ensure that pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles have safe movement around the

site within the private residential lots, private accessways and within the proposed public roads.

Consent is sought for a development exceeding 30 dwellings (36 and one studio proposed in

total), and the traffic assessment provided with the application concludes that the existing

roading network can adequately accommodate the additional traffic movements from the

development with adversely affecting the safe and efficient operation of the road network. The

additional density within the Overlea neighbourhood was fully assessed under the Overlea

Neighbourhood Framework Plan, and it was concluded that with some roading and intersection

upgrades (required by enhancement measures as part of the wider redevelopment of the area),

the existing wider roading network can accommodate the additional density and the proposal is

in accordance with the framework plan. Based on the assessment undertaken by Mr Langwell, I

consider that the surrounding road network can accommodate the additional traffic movements

per day.

The application requires consent for the removal of four trees located on the Council owned

road berm (Overlea Road and Leybourne Circle). Conditions of consent are recommended (and

endorsed by the applicant) for the safe removal of these trees and for details of replacement

planting to be provided. I consider these trees, once removed, will be a temporary loss to the

street scene amenity and wider neighbourhood character, and once replaced, will provide for an

attractive streetscape and the replacement trees can be well considered with specific regard to

the development of the site and integrated within the wider neighbourhood.

Furthermore, AT has reviewed the proposal and is generally satisfied with the layout, design

and approach to the parking and access design. Detailed design of the accessways and roads

will be provided for approval at the engineering plan approval stage, as well as the details of the

relocated bus stop - this has been recommended as condition of consent and endorsed by the

applicant.

Overall, it is considered that the design, layout and accessways (JOAL), parking and

intersection arrangements for both pedestrians and vehicles is appropriate and safe for the site.


It is considered that any adverse effects on adjacent sites would be less than minor from a

traffic perspective.

Character and Urban Design

The mixed housing suburban zone is the predominant residential zone within the PAUP. This

zone anticipates a moderate level of intensity to allow for the provision of a range of housing

typologies. It seeks high quality amenity onsite and dwellings that positively respond to the

street, the site context and the planned character of the area. The Precinct provisions for

Tāmaki identifies the need for further intensification to allow for the regeneration of the area to

cater for the increased population growth, but more importantly to transform the place making

within the Tāmaki area. The appropriateness of this character has been demonstrated and

assessed at a high level within the Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan

(R/LUC/2014/5367).

The existing character of the Overlea Neighbourhood area is dominated by a consistent built

form pattern comprised of single storey weatherboard state homes that have a typical setback

of 10 metres from the street edge. This existing pattern of development is an inefficient use of

an existing land resource and results in poorly defined street edges and limited contribution to

the visual amenity of the existing streetscene and neighbourhood character.

Furthermore, given the age of the housing stock, the existing dwellings are typically in poor form

and do not respond positively to the site characteristics in terms of orientation, outlook and

topography.

The Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan approved an overall density of 1/247m² over the

entire framework plan area. The subject application, being the Overlea North area is the third

stage of the Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan with stage 1 previously approved under

resource consent (R/JSL/2014/5371) in December 2015; and stage 2 previously approved

under resource consent (R/JSL/2015/4815) in March 2016.

Because of the large site area (9500m²) and integrated housing design approach any adverse

effects on the character of the surrounding neighbourhood character and amenity have been

appropriately mitigated through the comprehensive design approach and layout of the proposal

which will be compatible with the existing built form and pattern of development in this suburban

context.

The proposed houses are 2-3 storeys in height and of an overall bulk, scale and massing that is

compatible with what is anticipated in this context. This will ensure the buildings do not

adversely affect the neighbourhood character in which they are located. Overall it is considered

that the bulk, height and scale of the proposal is what could reasonably be anticipated on the

site in this suburban location of Auckland.


The overall design, including the pitch roof forms and well-articulated building mass and bulk

ensures that the buildings sit comfortably within the wider environment. It is considered that the

overall built form will result in less than minor adverse effects on the character and visual

amenity of the wider suburban context in which the site is located.

The design and external appearance of the buildings are in general keeping with the residential

character. The building forms will be compatible with the visual amenity of the residential

neighbourhood and in this regard any adverse visual effects when viewed from Overlea Road,

West Tamaki Road, Elstree Ave and Leybourne Circle or the wider environment, will be

negligible.

The proposed buildings provide sufficient differentiation in their built form through the differing

styles, palette of external finishing materials and roof forms. This will mean that the proposed

development when viewed from the wider environment will read as a series of separate and

distinct buildings rather than one continuous unmodulated building mass. Furthermore the

spacing of the buildings taken together with the modulation of each building and varying forms

will ensure that that the overall massing of the buildings both individually and collectively do not

appear to be overly dominant. Having regard to the above it is assessed that proposal will be

compatible with the local context and any adverse effects on the neighbourhood character will

be less than minor.

The proposal will provide sufficient landscaped areas within the front yard areas of the site

adjacent to existing and proposed road boundaries. The proposed landscaped areas will

provide sufficient space for meaningful planting. This planting will provide both a softening and

screening of the proposed development and will ensure this is integrated with the surrounding

established residential neighbourhood.

The proposed development features two-three storey dwellings with an average density of

1/263m², which is a change in the built and visual character from the existing established

residential area. In particular, the local area has typically not been redeveloped since it was

originally subdivided and developed approximately 60 years ago and where it has been

developed it generally adopts the density anticipated by the Operative Plan of one dwelling per

500m². Consequently, the local area is dominated by modest sized dwellings on large sites and

this proposal would signal a change in the visual amenity and neighbourhood character for the

local area, particularly for those properties opposite the development site on the western side of

Elstree Ave; the eastern side of Leybourne Circle; and northern side of West Tamaki Road.

The layout and design of the proposal will be consistent with the design principles approved

under the Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan. This approach will ensure an integrated

approach to proposal so that the proposal fits comfortably with the existing and future planned

development in this location.

The overall design of the proposal will result in an attractive new built form, which demonstrates

strong street edges that positively related to an engage with the adjacent street scenes of West


Tamaki Road, Overlea Road, Elstree Ave and Leybourne Circle. The design of the dwellings

have taken account of the adjacent properties by providing suitable separation distances in the

building layout, form and the use of landscaping has been incorporated into the scheme to

ensure reasonable amenity is maintained to those adjoining sites in a reasonable manner that is

anticipated in this location by the PAUP and Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan. It is

noted that the proposal has been designed within the anticipated building envelope for the site,

and will comply with the maximum height and height in relation to boundary development

controls along all external boundaries.

It is also important to note that this scheme forms the third phase of regeneration in the Overlea

Neighbourhood area as the wider Overlea Neighbourhood and wider area is identified to

undergo significant transformation and growth under the PAUP.

The submitted AEE assesses (at section 11.4.1) effects on local neighbourhood and

Streetscene amenity and character. I agree with this assessment, in particular it is considered

that the built form, proposed road and site layout and landscaping of the proposal will ensure

that the development provides an enhanced streetscape and the proposal is anticipated by the

zoning and Tāmaki Precinct of the PAUP.

The PAUP seeks to provide a compact city model of development, which is based on access to

public transport, open space and community facilities; and the requirement of good design.

Good design is identified in the PAUP as being development, which is outcome focussed,

responds to a particular context, and delivers well-functioning buildings and spaces.

The Design Statement submitted in support by Studio Pacific Architecture identifies that the

proposal has been designed having regard to the site opportunities and constraints; and has

been driven by the following key design principles:

Working with the natural topography

Landscaping – Public realm

Vehicle networks – Road design

Car parking and driveways

Pedestrian networks – Pathway design

Development block configuration

Building form and materiality

Landscaping – Private realm

Private Open Space (P.O.S)

Fencing

Other site amenities (Garbage storage and collection, clotheslines etc)

This proposal has incorporated where relevant these principles into the scheme. In particular,

the scheme will provide a strong streetscape frontage to Overlea Road, Elstree Ave, Leybourne

Circle and West Tamaki Road, with the proposed dwellings orientated and designed to engage

with the street edge and provide an appropriate level of passive surveillance. Furthermore the


proposal will provide a variety of typology approaches, heights and styles, landscaping and

elevational façade treatments used to articulate the built form of the dwellings across the site

and ensure visual interests when viewed from the wider viewing catchment.

The proposal has been reviewed by Matt Riley Principal Urban Designer HPO. Mr Riley advises

that the proposal is a positive urban design outcome for the site and, in particular Mr Riley has

provided the following assessment in respect to the general urban design matters:

The density and therefore associated visual effects of greater building coverage and

mass are positively addressed by techniques including gable end roof forms, which

assists in breaking down the scale of the buildings, façade cladding with a good level of

detail (either horizontal or vertical weatherboards or panels) and the use of specimen

trees within front yards, providing a strong vertical green element.

Larger houses are situated to the rear of the development blocks, with narrower

detached or duplex houses located to the street frontages. This is a rationale choice as,

in my view, it is easier to accommodate the effects of greater intensity (greater number

of people; increased vehicle movements etc) towards street frontages rather than within

deeper development sites.

The narrow width of the street frontage houses, combined with the slope of the land

down towards the street means that the ground floor street frontage of these houses

does not accommodate a habitable room. Instead, this part of the façade constitutes the

front door and garage door to each dwelling. This is not the ideal result. However,

within the constraints of development on these land parcels, it is a design response that I

support for reasons

In addition to the above, Mr Riley has suggested some amendments to the proposal including

the floor layout of the A3 typology; additional balconies to the House on Lot 127 and landscape

changes including the inclusion of additional specimen trees. I am in agreement with Mr Riley

insofar that specimen tree planting is required for houses located adjacent to Overlea Road and

Leybourne Circle and the inclusion of a balcony for the house on Lot 127. However from an

effects perspective the other matters are considered to be negligible in the context of the overall

proposal, which strikes an appropriate balance between providing for the amenity (privacy,

landscaping) for the residents and ensuring the streetscene amenity and character of the wider

environment is maintained.

The proposal sets a high benchmark for design and layout and illustrates that the provision of

affordable housing does not necessarily result in principles of quality urban design or form need

to be compromised in any way. It is considered the proposal will be a positive addition to the

existing local area and has appropriately responded to the site constraints and the relationship

with existing adjacent sites. Any potential adverse effects in terms of character and design are

considered to be less than minor, with the design response of the proposal considered to be

both a high quality and positive addition to the streetscape that is considered to appropriately


respond to the adjacent sites.

Amenity (Shadowing/Dominance/ Privacy)

Adjacent Sites

Tattico (on behalf of the applicant) have provided an assessment of the adverse effects on the

environment in the application report (AEE) dated 26 February 2016 that has included in section

11.4.2 a detailed assessment on visual dominance, shadowing and privacy. I concur with

Tattico’s assessment and consider that, overall the adverse effects of the activity on the

adjacent sites will be less than minor. In particular the AEE and supporting documentation have

satisfactorily demonstrated that any adverse effects on adjacent sites in respect to visual

dominance, shadowing and privacy will be less than minor, which I am in agreement with.

In addition to the AEE the following additional points are noted:

The PAUP requires that developments in the mixed housing suburban zone ensure that

immediate neighbours maintain a reasonable level of amenity in respect of shadowing, sunlight

and privacy and that excessive dominance effects are avoided.

The proposed dwellings have been designed to comply with the bulk and location controls under

the PAUP, in respect of external height in relation to boundaries, building coverage over the

entire site and individual lots, height and side/rear yards where they adjoin privately-owned

sites, to ensure that the development maintains a reasonable level of amenity for any adjacent

sites. With specific regard to the adjoining site identified in Table 1 that are not owned by the

applicant (Housing NZ), the design of the development is such that all development controls

along this external boundary comply, and also with the allowable density anticipated under the

PAUP. Therefore effects expected by the owners of this site and all other adjacent sites are

such that are anticipated by the precinct provisions of the PAUP, and are considered less than

minor.

Whilst the development of the site proposed of this density will result in a degree of overlooking

into proposed and existing neighbouring sites, this has been reduced / minimised as far as

practically possible, through the orientation of the primary windows to face onto the private

outdoor space within that site rather than overlooking the neighbouring properties, and where

possible, orientating the primary windows to face over the existing and proposed streets, access

ways. With regards to adjoining sites, the adjacent proposed dwellings have been carefully

designed to reduce any privacy issues where practically possible. Proposed dwellings have

been setback from the adjacent site boundaries and in most cases are provided privacy by way

of a 1.8m high fence on the common boundary. The primary first floor windows will face their

own rear yard, which provide an adequate distance between the rear wall of the dwelling and

the common boundary. It is noted due to topographical constraints that some fences are

proposed at 1.5m. I consider in these cases that such a height is acceptable.


I consider that the proposed development will maintain a reasonable level of privacy to adjacent

sites in a manner that is anticipated by the planning frameworks in this urban location.

In conclusion the adverse effects on adjacent sites including shadowing, visual dominance and

privacy will be less than minor and are overall considered to be consistent with the type and

degree of effects that are anticipated by the PAUP and Overlea Neighbourhood Framework

Plan in this location.

On site Amenity

The proposed development has been designed to provide a good overall amenity. Mr Riley

provides the following comment in respect amenity:

Internal layout

The internal layout of proposed dwellings is well thought out. I note that a number of

principal bedrooms infringe the minimum PAUP width requirement. I agree, however,

with Mr Cooper’s assessment that the degree of infringement is minor and that standard

size furniture can still be accommodated in these rooms with sufficient room around the

furniture for movement.

Outdoor living Space

Outdoor living space is generally orientated to the north or west, with the exception of a

reasonably small number of lots (132 – 135) which have outdoor living spaces with a

primarily southern orientation. The dimensions of outdoor living space are generally of

proportions that allow a table and chairs of sufficient numbers for the likely number of

occupants.

House Type B6 on Lot 127 has the principal living area of the main house (not its

proposed studio) at first floor. There is no associated first floor outdoor living space

adjacent this principal living area. My understanding of the relevant PAUP rule is that

where the principal living area is above ground level there must be an associated area of

private open space on the same floor in the form of a balcony or terrace or provided in a

roof terrace. I question whether the occupants will make good use of the ground floor

outdoor living space when their principal living area is at first floor level. My preference

would be that a first floor balcony is provided for this dwelling.

Fencing

Fencing shown on plan QD-3-304 is well considered, both in terms of its height relative

to the use it is screening and to the proposed design detail of, for some higher fences,

having a solid base, with visually permeable top.

I expressed concern about the height of some fencing along side and rear boundaries in

my s28 request, suggesting that it did not provide a sufficient level of privacy. The

applicant has provided a revised fencing plan and I am now satisfied that this issue has

been addressed.


Outlook and privacy to outdoor living spaces

In addition to my comments above on the height of fencing as it relates to privacy in

outdoor living spaces, I consider a minor design change would result in improved privacy

outcomes for one dwelling / lot.

The N3 house model on Lot 102 (frontage to Elstree Avenue) has an upper level

bedroom (B4) with a window facing out to the eastern boundary – at a distance of 3m

from the boundary. The adjoining lot to the east is Lot 104. The house on this lot has its

primary open space directly on the common boundary.

A second storey window located 3m from a boundary directly adjoining the neighbouring

house’s principal area of private open space will have some privacy impacts on that

open space, particularly in this case, where the private open space of Lot 104 is hard

paving almost to the common boundary (there is a strip of hedge planting). There is

therefore no ability to plant a specimen tree to filter direct views from N3’s bedroom B4.

It would be difficult to grow a hedge of the height necessary to provide reasonable

screening.

A better privacy result would be achieved if the window was removed from the eastern

elevation and put in the northern elevation. This looks out to the rear of the West

Tamaki Road shops, and so has less privacy concerns.

N3 bedroom B3 also has a window that looks towards the eastern boundary. I

appreciate that, on balance, retaining this bedroom’s window in the eastern façade of N3

is supportable

Outlook between houses

Lots 133 and 134 have proposed K5 house models on them looking out towards each

other over a 2m gap. These houses comply with the outlook space dimensions. I note,

however, that secondary windows from Bedrooms B2 and the study will look directly out

to each other over the 2m gap. These windows are not the largest in the rooms, so

people are likely to address any perceived privacy related effects by tilting blinds (if

provided).

In respect to the dwelling on Lot 127 the applicant has confirmed that a balcony will be

proposed at first floor level. This will provide a secondary outdoor amenity area that is

connected to the indoor area. These matters can be a condition of consent

Taking into account Mr Riley’s general support for the applicant, and in the context of the overall

development it is considered that the proposal will provide high quality amenity and good overall

living (indoor and outdoor) standards that also maintains appropriate level of amenity for

adjacent sites.

Overall, it is considered that the layout and detailed design of the proposal will achieve the

PAUP aspirations by ensuring that the scheme provides high quality amenity for the future

residents on the site.


Sustainability

An additional positive effect from the development is that all dwellings have been designed to

meet the PAUP requirement of Homestar 6 ratings. This will ensure that the dwellings will

achieve a high standard of sustainability and will in turn improve the long-term affordability of

the homes for occupiers in respect of energy and water use.

These ratings means that the dwelling design needs to be of a high standard and this is a

positive long term effect.

Universal Access

The proposal seeks to achieve a minimum of 20% universally accessible dwellings, which is

more than the minimum 20% required in the PAUP. This level of universal access is considered

acceptable in this instance.

Recommendation Conclusion

This application should be processed non-notified and without notification to those persons who

have not provided written approvals as identified in Table 1 or 2 because any potential adverse

effects are considered to be less than minor on any adjacent site or infrastructure providers for

the reasons given above. Furthermore, the proposal is in accordance with the aspirations of the

PAUP, which seek to provide for the transformation of the Tāmaki Precinct through high quality

neighbourhoods and the efficient and integrated use of land to ensure that housing affordability

and housing choice is achieved, and the approved Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan

(R/LUC/2014/5367), which sets out the master plan of the Overlea neighbourhood area. The

design of the proposal has responded to adjacent sites and the streetscape, with a reasonable

level of amenity maintained for these sites.

11 May 2016

………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………

Dylan Pope Date

Consultant Planner

Special Housing Areas


Notification Determination

Acting under delegated authority, and for the reasons set out in the above assessment and

recommendation, under s29 of the HASHAA this application shall be processed non-notified.

11 May 2016

………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………

Euan Williams

Lead Project Planner Date

Qualifying Developments DPO Consenting


CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION

Statutory Considerations

Sections 34 and 35 provide the statutory framework for consideration of any application for a

qualifying development within a Special Housing Area. Where the authorising agency grants an

application, it can impose conditions (s37 and s38 of the HASHAA).

Statutory Considerations under Section 34(1)

Section 34(1) details the matters the council must have regard to when considering applications

for resource consent applications (and any submission received from notification). The section

dictates a clear order for weighting from subs (1)(a) to subs (1)(e).

For the purposes of this report the matters are addressed individually – with the weighting

exercise of the relevant findings, following the weighting hierarchy required under the HASHAA.

Purpose of the HASHAA (s34(1)(a))

The purpose of the HASHAA is to enhance and facilitate an increase in land and housing supply

- in this case within the Auckland region. This criteria has the greatest weight in any

consideration of an application for a Qualifying Development.

The proposal directly aligns with the purpose of the HASHAA, as the scheme seeks to enhance

housing affordability by increasing housing supply and provided dwelling typologies tailored to

the housing need in Northern Tāmaki.

Part 2 of the RMA (Purpose and Principles) - (s34(1)(b))

Section 5 sets out the purpose of the RMA, and requires a broad judgement as to whether a

proposal would promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This

exercise of this judgement is informed by the principles in sections 6 to 8, and considered in

light of the particular circumstances of each application.

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA as it will promote

sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The proposal for 36 dwellings and a

studio unit has been well designed to make efficient use of the site, whilst providing and

retaining an appropriate level of amenity for existing and future residents, and minimising any

effects on the environment. The development will deliver wide community and social wellbeing

benefits for the local community.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (s34(1)(c))

Regional Policy Statement (Part 1 Chapter B)


Part 1, Chapter B of the PAUP sets out the strategic RMA framework for the identified issues of

significance, and resultant priorities and outcomes sought. Chapter B includes the following

headings of relevance:

Enabling quality urban growth;

Enabling economic well-being;

These align with the direction contained in the Auckland Plan. With respect to the above

matters, the following comments are made:

The proposal delivers on the quality compact city aspiration by making efficient use of

the site through the dwelling layout and design, landscaping approach and by providing

a range of building typologies to ensure housing choice across the site.

The design of the proposal responds positively to the existing and proposed streets and

reinforces the public realm by the interaction and layout of the street and access facing

dwellings. The scheme forms part of the 3rd stage of the Overlea regeneration and the

proposal aligns with both the planned and approved character of this neighbourhood

(Overlea Neighbourhood Framework Plan) and sets a benchmark for what further

phases of development will be measured against.

The site is located within an area that is well served by public transport and within

walking distance of the Glen Innes Town Centre, thereby intensifying in this location

supports the regeneration and residential intensification of the Tāmaki area.

Relevant Objectives and Policies (Regional and District)

An assessment against the relevant District and Regional Plan objectives and policies of

relevance to the scheme has been included in section 11.5 of the submitted AEE prepared by

Tattico. The applicant concludes that the proposal would be consistent with these objectives

and policies and I concur with this assessment.

In addition, within the notification assessment for the proposal on pages 16 to 30 of this report,

the scheme is assessed against the relevant objectives and policies of the PAUP.

Relevant Assessment Criteria

An assessment against the relevant Assessment Criteria of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

has been included in section 11.6 of the AEE prepared by Tattico. The applicant concludes that

the proposal would be consistent with these assessment criteria and I concur with this

assessment.

Overall, the proposal makes an efficient use of land and gives effect to the compact city model,


whilst providing for the regeneration of the Overlea area in accordance with the Overlea

Neighbourhood Framework Plan, in alignment with the aspirations of the Tāmaki Precinct. The

scheme sets a high benchmark for design and layout and illustrates that the provision of

affordable housing does not mean that principles of quality urban design or form need to be

compromised in any way. Furthermore, the design, layout and approach to the design of the

roading and access arrangements is appropriate and safe for the site and public use. Most

importantly, the proposal will be a positive addition to the existing local area and has

appropriately responded to the existing adjacent sites and the surrounding area and will create

a strong and well-designed connected streetscape to the Elstree Ave, Overlea Road, West

Tamaki Road and Leybourne Circle frontages, whilst providing surveillance and positive

frontages along these roads where appropriate.

Other Matters that Arise for Consideration under Sections 104 to 104F of the RMA

(s34(1)(d))

Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

Section 104(1)(a) of the RMA requires Council to have regard to any actual and potential effects

on the environment of allowing the activity. This includes both the positive and the adverse

effects.

Effects Assessment Summary

A full assessment of all the potential effects of the scheme both positive and adverse has been

undertaken within the notification assessment in pages 16 - 30 of this report. This section

concluded that any adverse effects are appropriate and the scheme has responded to the

adjacent sites through its approach to dwelling designs, layout, roading design, shared access

and landscaping. It also identified that the scheme introduced a number of positive effects

through the efficient use of the site, high quality design, provision of affordable housing and

dwelling typology that reflects local housing need and by the approach to stormwater

management on site.

Other Relevant Statutory Instruments

National Environmental Standard - s104(1)(b)(i)

The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to

Protect Human Health (2011) applies to this application, and a discretionary activity consent is

sought for disturbing soil on a piece of land which is not known to contain contaminated

materials. A PSI undertaken for the development identified areas of fill across the entire site

which it is assumed would have been deposited at the time of the original subdivision in the

1950s, and it is unknown where this fill came from, and whether this fill contained contaminants.

A full Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) report has not been prepared to support the application

due to the presence of the existing dwellings and the tight timeframes for the development,


however a Draft Contaminated Site Management Plan (DCSMP) has been prepared. This has

been reviewed by the relevant Council Specialist who has confirmed that consent can be

granted on the condition that this testing will be undertaken and if any contaminants are

identified, the soil will need to be fully remediated accordingly to NES and Council standards

prior to any earthworks or development taking place on site. It is noted a draft site management

plan was submitted with the application, which will be updated accordingly, and conditions of

consent will ensure this is adhered to.

Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan identifies the Tāmaki area as a strategic growth area for intensification and

the scheme responds directly to this direction being the first regeneration phase for HNZ/TRC

for the Overlea area. Furthermore, the Auckland Plan sets a direction to ‘demand good design

in all development’ this scheme responds positively to this direction with the scheme considered

to be of high quality and setting a benchmark for how the remaining phases of regeneration

within the Overlea area will be measured.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) - s104(1)(b)(iv)

For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of

that Act must be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement.

It is noted that the proposal would be connecting into a public stormwater system that

discharges into the Hauraki Gulf Marine Area, via the Tāmaki River. The proposal includes a

number of stormwater devices to manage flows off the site and these have been reviewed by

the Council’s Stormwater Team and found to be acceptable. During construction a number of

sediment control measures shall be adopted by the applicant to prevent any sediment laden

water entering the coastal environment. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with

the requirements of the above Act.

Any other Matters and Relevant Operative Regional and District Plan – s104(1) (c) and

104(1)(b)(iv)

Auckland Council and government entered into the Auckland Housing Accord on the 3rd October

2013. Under section 10 and 11 of HASHAA, the Accord established Auckland Council as an

authorised agency under the HASHAA, and outlines how Auckland Council will achieve the

purpose of the HASHAA, and increase housing supply and affordability over the next three

years. In exercising functions as an authorised agency, the Accord directs that any SHA is not

subject to the operative RPS or any other operative district plan, and that applications for

qualifying developments will be determined under the relevant provisions of the notified

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The provisions of an operative plan are a matter that regard

must be had to, under section 34(1)(d)(i) of HASHAA. However, relatively little weight has been

given to those provisions in light of the hierarchy of relevant matters described in section 34(1)

and the Accord which is considered to be a relevant matter for consideration under s 104 of the


RMA. Particularly relevant aspects of the operative plan have been identified and commented

on where appropriate.

Key Urban Design Qualities (s34(1)(e))

The Urban Design Protocol identifies seven essential design qualities that together create

quality urban design, being:

Context – Seeing buildings, places, and spaces as part of whole towns and cities

Character – Reflecting and enhancing the distinctive character, heritage and identity of

our urban environment

Choice – Ensuring diversity and choice for people

Connections – Enhancing how different networks link together for people

Creativity – Encouraging innovative and imaginative solutions

Custodianship – Ensuring design is environmentally sustainable, safe and healthy

Collaboration – Communications and sharing knowledge across sectors, professions

and with communities

The proposal is considered to accord with the design qualities above for the following reasons:

The scheme is part of the regeneration of the Overlea area with a Neighbourhood

Framework Plan prepared to set out the aspirations and opportunities for the local area,

and a framework plan previously approved. The scheme aligns with these plans and is

considered to be a positive enhancement to the local area and sets an important

benchmark for the quality of further development expected as part of this local

regeneration project.

The scheme makes efficient use of the site and has been designed to integrate into the

previous and future phases of regeneration in the local area.

The development includes different design approaches to ensure that there is variety

across the built form through roof forms, fenestration approaches and layout.

A range of housing typologies have been proposed to meet both local housing needs,

but also to ensure variety of household types across the proposed development. The

proposal has been designed to be ‘tenure blind’ to ensure that in latter phases of the

regeneration that there is the potential to ‘pepper pot’ housing tenure across the Tāmaki

Area.

The design of the new dwellings incorporates sustainable design solutions with good


solar gain and orientation of dwellings. Furthermore, the scheme will be designed to

achieve Homestar 6 which will ensure that the dwellings are affordable and healthy in

the long term.

Adequate Infrastructure

Resource consent for an activity cannot be granted unless there is sufficient and appropriate

infrastructure provided to support the qualifying development (s34(2)-(3)).

Pages 19 – 20 of this report outlines the provision of infrastructure for the subject site and wider

redevelopment of the Overlea neighbourhood area and found that there is suitable infrastructure

to service the development with no effects on adjacent properties or infrastructure providers.

Other Relevant Sections

Matters Relating to Subdivisions (s106 RMA)

Resource consent should be granted to the subdivision application as sufficient provision has

been made for legal and physical access and provision of services to each allotment created by

the subdivision. Appropriate conditions have been included on the subdivision to ensure that

the road reserve, and stormwater and wastewater assets are appropriately vested and

easements for services, utilities, access, party wall, overland flow paths are secured. This will

ensure that the adverse effects referred to within the assessment of effects above are avoided,

remedied or mitigated. Furthermore the land and structures on the land, will not be subject to

material damage by erosion, falling debris, subsidence, slippage or inundation from any source;

and any subsequent use that is likely to be made of the land is not likely to accelerate, worsen,

or result in material damage to the land, other land, or structure by erosion, falling debris,

subsidence, slippage, or inundation from any source.

Lapsing of Consent (s51)

Under section 51 the HASHAA, this consent lapses 2 year after the date it is granted unless:

a. The consent is given effect to; or

b. The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses.

In this instance a 2 year is considered appropriate for the scale of development, incorporating

earthworks, infrastructure, and access construction and the construction of 36 new dwellings.

Monitoring (s76)

The proposal will need to be monitored in accordance with the conditions specified in this report,

and the requirements contained in the PAUP. It is considered that a condition should be

included on the consent to ensure that a suitable deposit is required to allow the monitoring of

the consent, given the scale of the proposal this monitoring deposit should be set at $1500.00.


Recommended Conditions (s37) and (s38)

The following groups of conditions are recommended to be included on the consent to ensure

that matters of the detailed design of the built form, landscaping, infrastructure and other

matters are appropriately secured. The conditions have been grouped in the following broad

topics:

Subdivision and Land Use

Infrastructure shall be constructed

Construction of roads and accessways shall be undertaken

Affordable housing requirements

Engineering Plan Approval Conditions

Details of wastewater, water supply and stormwater devices and infrastructure and

services will be required to be approved prior to works commencing

Details of the proposed roads and accessways will be required to be approved prior to

works commencing

Street tree planting details will be required to be approved prior to works commencing

Land Use Only Conditions

Infrastructure works to be undertaken in accordance with the engineering plans

Construction requirements

Earthworks requirements

Public and private landscape treatment for final detailed design of hard and soft

landscaping

Dwellings and urban design conditions to ensure that the final detailed design is

conditioned in terms of external materials

Contamination requirements

Subdivision Only Conditions

S.223 conditions for approval of the survey plan

S.224c conditions to obtain title to the proposed sites

Recommendation

Under sections 34, 36, 37 and 38 of the HASHAA, I recommend that this non-notified

discretionary activity application is granted, subject to the following conditions.

The reasons for this decision are detailed in the attached draft decision and recommended

conditions.


This report and recommendation prepared by:

Name: Dylan Pope

Title: Consultant Planner, Special Housing Areas

Signed:

Date: 11 May 2016