Bunnings Consent Application Decision

AUCKLAND
COUNCIL
Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consent SUBJECT: Application for resource consent under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Bunnings Limited to establish a Bunnings Building Improvement Centre and associated works and a diversion of groundwater at 272-276, 300 & 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021. The hearing was held on 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th October 2013
CONSENT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104, 104B AND 104D AND PART 2 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, IS GRANTED. THE FULL DECISION IS SET OUT BELOW
Hearing Panel:
The Applications were heard by Hearings Commissioners: Mr Greg Hill Chairman Mr Trevor Mackie Ms Janine Bell Mr Ken Baguley (Orakei Local Board Member) Mr Graeme Michie Mr Richard Blakey Mr Karl Hancock Mr Gerald Blunt Mr Jon Styles Mr Nick Hazard Mr Richard Reid Senior Resource Consent Project Manager Reporting Officer Traffic Engineer Urban Designer Noise Consultant Environmental Health Officer Democracy Advisor - Hearings
Council Officers:
APPEARANCES: For the applicant:
Mr David Kirkpatrick Legal Counsel Mr David Boersen Applicant Bunnings Property and Store Development Manager Mr Christopher Hume Architect Ms Rebecca Skidmore Urban Designer Mr Paul Culley Civil Engineer Mr Chris Hillman Environmental Engineer (Groundwater) Mr Chris Freer Geotechnical Engineer Mr Don McKenzie Traffic Engineer Mr Curt Robinson Acoustician Mr Mathew Norwell Planner **Note see the statement below with respect to the submitters Mr Lee Whiley Mr Alan Webb Legal Counsel for Arch Hill Residents (Arch Hill Residents Society) Ms Anita Aggrey submitter (Arch Hill Residents Society) Ms Susan Lyons submitter (Arch Hill Residents Society) Ms Katie Sutherland submitter (Arch Hill Residents Society)
1
APPEARANCES: Submitters:
272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 LUC No.: R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit)
Mr Andrew Jacobs submitter (Arch Hill Residents Society) Mr David Batten (witness called by the submitters) Mr Michael Lee (witness called by the submitters) Mr Shale Chambers (witness called by the submitters) Mr Jonathon Rennie (witness called by the submitters) Mr Brian Putt Planner (expert witness called by the submitters) Mr Pravin Dayaram Traffic Engineer (expert witness called by the submitters) St James Kindergarten Committee: Mr Michael Berin Ms Jeanette Pinker Ms Evette Gourdie; and Ms Elena Smith. Ms Nisha Evans Kindercare: Mr Malcolm Maclean Legal Counsel Mr Nigel Williams Traffic Engineer Mr John Klimeko Engineer Mr Keith Hopkins and Ms Fou Brown Hopkins statement read by Ms Sue Lyons Ms Judith Aggrey statement presented by Ms Christina Asher Tabled Evidence Ms Nesh Pillay (on behalf of the owners of 34 King St Arch Hill
** These applications were processed on a limited notified basis. Accordingly only those persons notified of the applications were able to submit to the proposal. At the hearing, submissions and evidence (including expert traffic and planning evidence) was given by the by the Arch Hill Residents Society. We understand this Society was formed in relation the proposal by Bunnings to develop this site. We note that the Arch Hill Residents Society is not a submitter to the applications, but that a number of its members are. Mr Whiley, Ms Aggrey, Ms Lyons and Ms Sutherland are members of the Society and appeared and gave evidence. Mr Webb Legal Counsel for the Arch Hill Residents Society, stated that his submissions were filed on behalf of that Society. As explained and agreed at the hearing, these submitters were giving evidence in their own right and some had called the others as witnesses to support their submissions (but collectively referred to themselves as the Arch Hill Residents Society). We have referred to this group of submitters as the Arch Hill Residents. 1. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY DETAILS
Application Numbers: Site Address: Applicant's Name: Hearing Dates: Hearing Panels Site Visit: Hearing Closed:
R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit) 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Bunnings Limited 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th October 2013 Individually prior to the hearing and then together as a Panel on the 10th October 2013 21st October 2013
2
2.
DECISIONS
2.1
Late Submission Pursuant to section 37 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the late submission by Alison Rumpff is ACCEPTED. The submission was received one day later than the submission deadline, did not cause any delay in processing the applications and no objection to accepting the submission was raised by the Applicant.
2.2
Substantive Decision Pursuant to sections 104, 104B and 104D and Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), consent is GRANTED to the non-complying activity application by Bunnings Limited to establish and operate a Bunnings Building Improvement Centre, associated works and a diversion of ground water at 272276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021, being Lot 1 DP 54261 (CT NA19C/991), Lot 1 DP 100596 (CT NA55C/354), Lot 1 DP 64875 (CT NA21C/1275), and Leasehold CT 423055, and being referenced as R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit).
3. 3.1
THE PROPOSAL The Proposal Bunnings seek resource consent for the construction and operation of a Bunnings Warehouse - Building Improvement Centre, with associated parking, loading, servicing and landscaping. The proposed development will include the following elements: Display, storage and sale of goods such as building and plumbing materials, timber and joinery, with a timber trade sales area, a cafe and an outdoor garden nursery and ancillary office areas, with a total gross floor area (GFA) of 8,430m2; A total of 218 parking spaces provided within the building over two levels (including eight mobility spaces and two trailer parking spaces). Access will be provided to the site via King Street, and a left-turn access on Great North Road, while exits are available from King Street (2 exits) and Great North Road (left turn only); and A loading delivery and departure access is provided on Dean Street (truck deliveries only).
It is proposed that the activity will operate seven days per week between the hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, and 8am to 6pm Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Summer hours may be extended to 9pm Monday Saturday. The proposal involves the removal of all of the existing buildings on the site. A significant amount of excavation during the construction stage is required to provide a level platform for the basement level parking. This will occur over an area of 6,650m2, and involve a total of 22,200m3 of cut.
The proposal was fully set out in the application documents and in evidence before the hearings panel. 4. 4.1 SITE ZONING AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION Site Zoning The land is zoned Mixed Use in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (District Plan). It is also zoned Mixed Use under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)1. The PAUP was notified on 30th September 2013. Consideration needs to be given to the relevant objectives, policies and rules of it. We were advised by the Council Officers, Legal Counsel for the Applicant and submitters and other expert planners that we should place little or no weight on the Unitary Plan (in relation to the land use issues) given it had only recently been notified. We agree with this, but address it later in this decision. The rules in relation to 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit) have immediate effect, and again we address this below. Set out below is the zoning map from the District Plan showing the site and its surrounds. The Mixed Use zoning extends along both sides of Great North Road in a westerly and easterly direction with Residential 1 zoned land adjoining it.
The Site
4.2
Site Description and Location The site is located on the south-western side of the intersection of Great North Road and King Street, in Grey Lynn. Dean Street forms the sites southern boundary. The western boundary of the site is defined by the site described as 308-310 Great North Road and which extends from Great North Road to 4 Bond Street. It has a total area of 7,207m2. The site contains a series of low-rise buildings of an industrial character and associated carparking. Due to the slope of the site, buildings along Great North
The PAUP was notified on the 30 September 2013, before the hearing of these applications commenced. 4
th
Road are single level and two-level where they front Dean Street. These buildings were recently occupied by a clothing manufacturer, a vehicle dealership, and a paint supply trade outlet. A number of parking spaces are accessed directly from Great North Road (38 spaces) via two vehicle crossings, while other parking and servicing areas are available from Dean Street (13 spaces), which are accessed directly from the carriageway. There is space for an additional 40 vehicles on the western section of the site. Surrounding activities along Great North Road encompass a range of activities, including new and used car sales yards, light industry, retail, storage and residential. Residential development adjoins the Mixed Use zone to the south. The residential zoning of the land to the south (which adjoins the Bunnings site) is zoned Residential 1 a zone which reflects the heritage character of this area and is predominately villas and cottages. The residential properties on the southern side of Dean Street are located either at grade or below the Dean Street carriageway due to the slope of the land. A childcare centre (Kindercare) is located on the corner of Dean Street and King Street opposite the site, and a church occupies a large building on the opposite side of King Street. Great North Road is a four-lane district arterial road, providing two lanes in each direction, and a median lane that extends to the east and terminates a short distance to the west. Kerb-side parking is available outside of clearway times, while some No Stopping At All Times lines affect the availability of parking adjacent to the intersection of Great North Road with King Street. The southern west-bound lane of Great North Road functions as a bus lane during afternoon peak hours, and an east-bound bus lane performs the same function in the morning peak on the northern side. King Street and Dean Street are single lane local roads and provide for unrestricted kerbside parking (approximately 18 spaces in Dean Street, and 17 spaces in the northern section of King Street). 5. 5.1 NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS Limited Notification The application was notified on a limited basis in accordance with a decision of the Councils Duty Commissioner dated 22 March 2013 pursuant to section 95B of the RMA. The decision concluded that the proposal required limited notification because written approval has not been obtained from the owners/occupiers of those properties listed in that decision. 5.2 Submissions Received Fifty one submissions were received. Fifty of those were in opposition to the applications, with one being neutral. The submissions and a summary of them were set out in the reporting officers section 42A report. 6. REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION
Resource consents are required under the provisions of the following: District Plan; Regional Plan; Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan; and National Environmental Standards.
272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 LUC No.: R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit) 5
6.1
Operative District Plan Resource consent is required under the following provisions of the District Plan: The proposed Building Improvement Centre is not provided for in the activity table under Rule 8.7.7 for the Mixed Use zone and therefore requires consent as a non-complying activity. While the overall activity status is non-complying the following matters are also relevant and would have otherwise required consent. The proposal involves the development of a new building in the Mixed Use zone. Pursuant to Rule 8.7.7, this requires consent as a restricted controlled activity. The proposal involves the development of a new building located within 30m of the Residential 1 zone. Pursuant to Rule 8.7.7 any permitted or controlled activity listed in the table located within 30m of the Residential 1, 2a, 2b, 5, 6a, 7a, 7b and 7c zones requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity. The proposal involves approximately 6,650m2 of earthworks over an average slope of 9.4%. Pursuant to Rule 4A.2B this requires consent as a restricted controlled activity. The proposal involves works within the dripline of three street trees. Pursuant to Rule 5C.7.3B(b) this requires consent as a restricted controlled activity. The proposal requires excavations. Pursuant to Rule 8.7.7, consent is required for these excavations as defined in Part 13 as a controlled activity. Under Rule 12.8.1.1 the proposed floor space requires 422 parking spaces. As the proposal includes 218 parking spaces, there is a shortfall of 204 spaces. Pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1, this requires consent as a discretionary activity. The proposed vehicle crossing to Great North Road will exceed the maximum 6 metre width under Rule 12.8.2.2 by 0.3 metres. Pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1 this requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity. The proposed vehicle crossings on Great North Road and King Street will be located within a Defined Road Boundary, as defined under Rule 12.8.2.6. Pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1, any activity with access within a Defined Road Boundary requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity. The proposal involves provision for parking for more than 100 vehicles. Pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1A this requires consent as a controlled activity. The proposal involves an expected2 10dB infringement to the applicable maximum construction noise limit of LAeq 70dB specified under Rule 4A.1D of the District Plan. Pursuant to Rule 4A.1(ii) this is a non-complying activity.
As described in the memorandum by Styles Group Limited dated 11 March 2013. 6
6.2
Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air Land & Water (RP:ALW) The proposal requires consent under the RP:ALW as it involves the diversion of groundwater in a manner that may not be considered in accordance with the conditions for a permitted activity under Rule 6.5.76. Pursuant to Rule 6.5.77 consent is therefore required as a restricted discretionary activity.
6.3
National Environmental Standard for Contaminated Soils The site is identified on the Councils records as being contaminated. Consent is therefore required 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.
6.4
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) The PAUP was publicly notified on the 30th September 2013, after this application had been lodged, but before this decision was made. Pursuant to section 88A(1A) of the RMA, the application continues to be processed, considered, and decided as an application for the type of activity that it was for, or was treated as being for, at the time the application was first lodged. Landuse rules in the PAUP (as they affect this application) do not take immediate effect. Hence we have determined this application as a non-complying activity (noting that the PAUP applies the Mixed Use zoning to the site and that trade suppliers3 as an activity is classified as a discretionary activity). The regional rules have immediate legal effect. We were advised by the reporting officer that under the PAUP the ground water diversion proposed by this application would require consent as a restricted discretionary activity (rule 4.17.1). This is the same activity status as in the operative RP:ALW. With respect to the objectives and policies of the PAUP, we are required pursuant to section 104(1)(b) of the RMA to have regard to these. However, the advice given to us by the Applicant, submitters and the council officers is that little or no weight should be given to them given the very recent notification of the PAUP. We agree and have accordingly given them very little weight.
6.5
Overall Activity Status As the various consent aspects of the proposal could not be carried out independently of each other, we have bundled the applications. This was supported by the Applicant. Overall, the application in terms of the Operative District and Regional Plan is a non-complying activity. We record that there was no disagreement among the parties over the activity status.
3 We were advised by Council Officers that this definition would apply to a Bunnings Building Improvement Centre.
7.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONSIDERED NON COMPLYING ACTIVITY In making our decision we have had regard to the relevant statutory provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 of the RMA and sections 104, 104B, 104D, and 108 as was detailed in the officers section 42A report and in evidence. As a non-complying activity it is necessary to set out and apply the statutory tests relevant to this application. Accordingly the applications are subject to section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991. This is commonly referred to as the gateway tests. Section 104D requires an application to pass at least one of the two tests, and if it fails both then the application must be refused consent. If the application can satisfy section 104D then a determination is required under section 104B whether to grant or refuse consent. The section 104D tests require that either the adverse effects of the application on the environment must be minor when taking into account any mitigation proposed or reasonably able to be imposed (section 104D(1)(a)), or the application must not be contrary to the objectives and policies of any relevant plan and proposed plan (section 104D (1) (b)). In deciding this matter it is important to understand the existing environment and the likely future environment should consent be granted and the effects that the proposal may have. It is also necessary to review the relevant objectives and policies in the Regional and District Plans to determine if the application is consistent with or contrary to them. In doing so we have considered all of the relevant matters set out in section 104 Consideration of Applications and then returned to the section 104D tests to determine if one or both have been met. We set this out below.
8.
RELEVANT PLANNING PROVISIONS CONSIDERED We have had regard to the relevant provisions of the: Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS); Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section); Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land & Water) (ACRP:ALW); and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP); and National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES Soil Contamination)
9. 9.1
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE HEARD Prior to the hearing we received and read: The application and the Assessment of Environmental Effects; The submissions; and The Council officers section 42A hearing report and all of the supporting information contained within it.
8
9.2
At the hearing Legal Submissions and evidence was provided at the hearing for and on behalf of the Applicant and Submitters. We set out a very brief summary of the evidence here but refer to it in more detail in the section Findings and Reasons below. Applicant Mr Kirkpatrick - legal counsel, introduced the case for Bunnings and submitted that the application satisfied the section 104D non-complying activity - tests. He also submitted that in terms of broad discretionary judgments that need to be made under section 104 and 104B that it was appropriate that consent be granted, subject to the conditions of consent. He called a number of witnesses and these included: Mr Boersen introduced Bunnings and the Bunnings Warehouse concept. He also addressed in some detail the proposal and how Bunnings had changed its standard development typology to fit with this proposed site, its context and to respond to the outcome of consultation with the neighbours. Mr Hume Architect, addressed the building design process and resolution regarding designing a building for this site as opposed to the standard Bunnings typology. He also addressed the materials and colours to be used and how the design had addressed Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Ms Skidmore Urban Designer, provided a summary of the site context analysis as part of her urban design assessment. She also commented on the sites suitability to accommodate the proposed activity and suitability of the buildings scale, form and layout in relation to the surrounding context. Ms Skidmore also addressed the effects on streetscape character, pedestrian amenity and the amenity effects on adjoining properties in Dean Street. Mr McKenzie Traffic Engineer, addressed the level of traffic likely to be generated as a result of the proposal and how the resulting traffic (delivery and customer and staff vehicles) could be accommodated on the surrounding road network and the adequacy and functioning of the proposed access and egress points. He also addressed the anticipated parking and loading requirements. Mr Robinson Acoustician, set out the existing ambient acoustic environment and the relevant noise provisions in the District Plan. He then addressed the predicted sound emissions from the proposed activity, especially at the residential interface, in terms of demolition/construction and the operation of the centre. Mr Robinson then set out the proposed noise management and mitigation measures. His evidence was that the proposal would comply with the District Plan noise provisions. Messrs Culley, Hillman and Freer addressed the more technical aspects of the proposal including issues of earthworks, site contamination, ground water draw down, geotechnical issues and infrastructure servicing. The evidence given was that all of these matters could be satisfactorily addressed subject to the proposed conditions of consent. Mr Norwell Planner, provided a planning assessment of the proposal and addressed the relevant planning documents (as set out earlier). It was his opinion, that having relied on the other expert evidence and assessed the proposal against
9
the relevant plans, it satisfied the non-complying tests; that the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies and would have no more than minor adverse effects. He considered that in terms of section 104 and Part 2 of the RMA the proposal was an appropriate one on this site, that the adverse effects had been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated, and there that were positive effects from the development. Overall, taking all relevant matters into account, he opined that the proposal met the purpose of the RMA. Mr Kirkpatrick provided verbal and written closing legal submissions addressing the following: Mixed Use zoning objectives and policies Amenity Values Traffic: o o o Network capacity Loading Parking on- and off-street
Conditions
Of particular note was the offer that if the Commissioners considered a (further) reduction in deliveries was warranted, then Bunnings would suggest the following to further reduce the issues around trucks at morning and afternoon peaks while retaining sufficient provision for deliveries to the store:4 Monday - Friday 7:00am - 9:00am 9:00am - 3:00pm 3:00pm - 5:00pm Total Submitters Arch Hill Residents were represented by Mr Webb - legal counsel. He provided legal submissions. He submitted that while the submitters were not opposed to change, it was the scale of the proposed activity, and the consequential effects arising from it that was of concern. He stated that the submitters .fully appreciate that they live in, and have purchased properties in a residential zone adjacent to a mixed use zone. Their expectations as to lifestyle and amenity upon such purchases were guided by what activities were intended in the mixed use zone, knowing full well that the Site could be redeveloped at any stage. They would welcome a mix of activities that serviced and/or enhanced the village community they have established. However, they did not have any expectation that their lifestyles would be subjected to such an intense commercial activity and on such a massive scale operating right on their front door step. 5 Hours 2 6 2 Trucks per hour 1 4 1 Total 2 20 maximum 2 24
4 5
Para 26 of Mr Kirkpatricks closing submissions. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of Mr Webbs legal submissions. 10
Mr Webb set out that there need not be a mixed use of this particular site and that the District Plan does not require this6. However he went on to state that the District Plan does not anticipate the intensification of the site as is proposed by Bunnings7. He set out that the evidence he would call, including expert planning and traffic evidence, would demonstrate that the proposal could not pass either of the section 104D tests. Mr Webb stated that the adverse effects fell broadly into two categories traffic and other miscellaneous effects. With respect to traffic he called Mr Dayaram (Traffic Engineer) as well as anecdotal evidence from lay submitters. The other miscellaneous effects included Plan integrity, amenity and the quality of the environment8. Mr Putt, his planning witness, and the other lay witnesses he would call would address the other effects. His submission was that the applications should be declined. Mr Whiley, Ms A Aggrey, Ms Sutherland, Ms Lyons, Mr Batten, Mr Jacobs, Ms J Aggrey, Mr Hopkins, Ms Brown-Hopkins, Mr Batten, Mr Rennie, Ms Evans, Ms Pillay, Mr Lee and Mr Chambers all raised community as well as individual concerns about the proposal as it would affect the local community and (where relevant) their own property and amenity values. Their concerns can be broadly grouped into the following matters: The incompatibility of the activity (mainly its scale) in the Mixed Use zone, and as it would affect the surrounding residential properties, most of which are zoned Residential 1 in the District Plan. A number of the submitters set out that they were aware of the Mixed Use zone, but expected or would prefer apartments, small scale retailing activities, other smaller commercial and start up type activities, and considered that it was these types of activities were envisaged in the Mixed Use zone. That Big Box stores are not appropriate in this location. The poor design of the buildings in urban design terms given the size and location of the site and its interface with Great North Road where Mr Lee9, Mr Chambers10 and Mr Rennie (an Architect) commented about the importance of this road as a strategic transport corridor and how Great North Road requires a high quality/designed building. The loss or destruction of amenity values to individual properties and the surrounding (residential) community due to the scale of the activity in terms of: o The scale and design of the building, particularly its Dean Street frontage; Intensity of the activity; The amount of traffic and in particular the delivery vehicles;
o o
6 7
Para 10 of Mr Webbs legal submissions ibid 8 Para 56 of Mr Webbs legal submissions 9 Mr Lee, is an Auckland Councillor, but was giving evidence as a lay witness for the Arch Hill Resident submitters. 10 Mr Chambers, (at the time of this hearing) was the Chair of the Waitemata Local Board. We note that he was called as a witness for Arch Hill Resident submitters and had the appropriate delegation from the Local Board to speak and present its position on the application. 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 LUC No.: R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit) 11
o o
The impact on on-site parking; and Safety, noise and vehicle emissions.
The poor interface of the proposed development with the provisions of the Residential 1 zone. That the proposal was contrary to the objectives and policies of the Mixed Use zone and other provisions in the District Plan, and that the effects were more than minor some considering them to be significant particularly with respect to residential amenity values and the quality of the environment.
The Submitters (Arch Hill Residents) called the following experts: Mr Dayaram Traffic Engineer addressed the impact of the proposal on the local roading network. In doing so he set out the existing conditions of the traffic situation of the immediate area and also considered how other Bunnings stores operated from a traffic flow and parking perspective. It was his opinion that having reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and the survey works undertaken11, that the vehicle trip generation rates had been significantly underestimated. In considering the likely vehicle (customer) traffic generation, the truck volumes, the King Street/Great North Road intersection as well as pedestrian safety, loading and on street parking, it was Mr Dayarams opinion that the traffic effects would result in adverse traffic effects on the surrounding area. He considered that these adverse effects were more than minor and the application should therefore be declined on traffic grounds12. Mr Putt Town Planner, provided planning evidence and had assessed the proposal in relation to the statutory planning documents. His assessment and ultimate conclusions were different to Mr Norwell and Mr Blakey (the Councils reporting officer). Mr Putt opined that the proposal did not meet either of the section 104D tests, and even if it did it would be trapped under s.104 when considered in terms of Part 213. He further stated The proposal does not create a sustainable management outcome because it results in the inappropriate use of the important physical resource presented by the subject site14. In summary, Mr Putt came to the above conclusion as the application, in his opinion, does not respond appropriately to the clear purpose of the District Plan at this sensitive location15. He considered the interface of the Mixed Use zone and the Residential 1 zone requires a high level of design to reflect the intent of purpose of the Mixed Use Zone to maintain and enhance as it should the amenities of the adjoining Residential 1 zone16. He further stated that The Bunnings proposal cannot reflect those intentions and is fundamentally contrary to them17. St James Kindergarten, located at 25 Home Street was concerned about the impact of the proposal on: safety issues in particular on the children who, walk,
11
Mr Dayaram stated in evidence (para 17) that under his direction the Arch Hill Residents had undertaken a number of surveys and traffic counts. 12 Para 106 of Mr Dayarams evidence. 13 Para 6.9 of Mr Putts evidence. 14 ibid 15 Para 1.8 of Mr Putts evidence. 16 Ibid 17 Ibid 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 LUC No.: R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit) 12
cycle or scooter to the kindergarten - due to the increased traffic generated; pollution and noise, again generated by the increased traffic, particularly trucks; and the impact that the development would have on the local community, which the kindergarten is a part of. St James Kindergarten sought that the application be declined. Kindercare, located at 7 King St (on the corner of King and Dean Street) was represented by Mr Maclean legal counsel. He set out the case for Kindercare, being that consent should be declined as the application could not pass either of the section 104D tests, and if it could then consent should still be declined due to the significance of the adverse effects. The adverse effects were, in his submission: ground stability and the retaining wall on the Dean Street frontage, traffic and parking (including construction traffic) and vehicle exhaust fumes and child health. He called two expert witnesses Mr Williams (Traffic) and Mr Klimenko (Engineer). Mr Williams (traffic) considered that there were a number of traffic related effects that adversely impacted on the safety and wellbeing or the users of the Kindercare site and of other road users. He considered that there were significant uncertainties with regards to parking issues and that the trip generation effects of the activity were not well defined. Mr Williams also opined that vehicle manoeuvres likely to arise in at the sites loading facility in Dean Street should not be contemplated or allowed on a public road18. Overall he concluded that the traffic related aspects of the proposal did not present a comprehensive or viable solution to the traffic needs of the proposed activity. Mr Klimenko (Engineer) considered the impact of increased traffic from the proposed development, and in particular heavy vehicles, on the stability and functioning of the existing retaining wall on Kindercares Dean Street frontage. He set out what he considered the history of the retaining wall and how and when it may have been built. It was his opinion that the existing retaining wall would not be able to accommodate the repeated surcharge loads from commercial vehicle movements directly attributable to the operation of the applicant19. He stated that he could not confirm if the existing wall has been designed and constructed to accommodate the proposed loads, but the risk of failure could be reduced to an acceptable level if a series of bollards were installed along the existing curb on Dean Street. 10. THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION
The entire proposal was in contention with the submitters seeking that the proposal be refused. While some issues were raised with respect to the use of the site for the proposed activity, overall the main reason for the opposition was the scale of the activity, and the consequential effects arising from this. In this respect the issues are: Whether the use of the site for a Bunnings Building Improvement Centre, was appropriate or not and if so was the scale appropriate; Whether the building to accommodate the proposed activity was appropriate or not from an urban design perspective. This is in terms of how it relates to the mixed use environment (the Great North Road and
18 19
Para 10.4 of Mr Williams evidence Para 63 of Mr Klimenkos evidence 13
King Street frontages) and the residential environment (Dean Street and the surrounding residential streets); Whether the character and amenity of the area, particularly the interface with the residential area to the south of the site, be appropriately addressed or not. This is particularly in respect to matters arising from the scale of the proposal (including the size of the building - height and height in relation to boundary resulting, dominance, shading, loss of aural and privacy effects, and an increase in traffic and safety); Whether the effects on children attending the Kindercare and St James Kindergarten would be significantly adverse, including in terms of increased traffic and fume. With respect to the Kindercare site the impact from heavy vehicle traffic on its retaining wall on Dean Street; Whether the surrounding roading network can accommodate the increase in traffic accessing and exiting the site, particularly at the King Street/Great North Road intersection and on Dean Street. Also whether the traffic (and issues relating to loading and on-street parking) could be managed in a safe and efficient manner on the surrounding streets, as well as the amenity effects on the surrounding local road network (particularly King and Dean Streets); and Whether construction effects, particularly traffic, noise, dust and vibration can be appropriately managed.
The Applicant considered that all of the matters could be addressed, such that adverse effects could be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Applicant also considered that the proposal satisfied the relevant statutory tests and met the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Submitters disagreed.
11. 11.1
OUR FINDINGS AND REASONS - SECTION 104 MATTERS Section 104 Section 104 (consideration of applications) states: (1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to (a) (b) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and any relevant provisions of (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) a national environmental standard: other regulations: a national policy statement: a New Zealand coastal policy statement: a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
14
(vi) (c)
a plan or proposed plan: and
any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
We address these below. Having done that we then return to the section 104D threshold tests to determine if one or both of these tests have been satisfied. 11.2 The Activity It was agreed by all parties that the activity of a Building Improvement Centre was not one provided for in the Mixed Use zone i.e. it is a non-complying activity. We have firstly considered whether the activity itself (as opposed to its scale, which we address later) is an appropriate one in the zone, or contrary to it given the purpose and intent of the Mixed Use zone. We accept that the activity and its scale go hand in hand, but it in terms of the relevant statutory tests we consider it appropriate to address these matters individually prior to applying the section 104D tests, and then in making an overall broad judgement. 11.3 Broader Strategic Considerations We have first considered the proposed activity against the broader strategic documents the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Regional Policy Statement. To provide a context for the consideration of these documents and the proposal we record here that in summary (we provide more detail later) the Mixed Use zone seeks to encourage a mix of activities that contribute to the vitality and aesthetic qualities of the surrounding environment. 11.4 The Auckland Plan The Auckland Plans purpose is to:20 Contribute to Aucklands social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing through a comprehensive and effective long-term (20- to 30-year) strategy for Aucklands growth and development. The Auckland Plan sets out an overall vision for Auckland over the coming 30-40 years. Of relevance to the proposal is that the Auckland Plan anticipates that the majority of future growth will be incorporated within defined urban areas, and growth being concentrated in and around centres. The Auckland Plan identifies a hierarchy of centres, with the Central City at the top, followed by eight metropolitan centres, 38 town centres, and a larger number of local centres. The subject site is located just inside the Central City Fringe area, with its focus as the most intensively developed part of Auckland, and is described in the Auckland Plan as follows: It provides significant capacity for business and high density residential development within a variety of precincts. It is the focus for regional transportation services. It (the city centre) is surrounding by the city fringe, and lies within a 2km walkable catchment (approximately). It provides
20
developed in accordance with section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LG(AC)A), which required the Council to prepare a spatial plan (the Auckland Plan), 15
complementary living, business and entertainment activities within traditional and higher-density neighbourhood living and specialist precincts. In summary, the Auckland Plan identifies the Central City Fringe area as being able to accommodate future development of a relatively high density, recognising its pre-eminence for such development and its accessibility to transport routes, services and other complementary commercial services. While the Auckland Plan currently has little statutory weight, the proposed development per se is not contrary to it. 11.5 Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS) The ACRPS sets out the direction and provisions for managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. Chapter 2 (Regional Overview and Strategic Direction) of the ACRPS has most relevance to these applications. The key issues in the ACRPS relevant to the proposal include the need to accommodate population growth and economic development and avoiding ad hoc urban redevelopment. The strategic objectives contained at section 2.6 of the ACRPS seek to address these issues in an integrated manner, and are supported by policies at section 2.6.2 (Urban Containment) and 2.6.5 (Urban Structure). The Applicants AEE set out a number of reasons as to why the proposal would be consistent with, and not contrary to, the ACRPS as follows: The proposal represents a new development which caters for the growing population and (the) need to accommodate economic development; ... The site is located within a transport corridor and is consistent with the (Auckland) Growth Strategy; Given the physical size and operational requirements of a building improvement centre, it is considered that, without careful design and consideration, locating such an activity within existing specified centres could potentially generate adverse effects on the typically fine-grained, pedestrianfocused urban environments. Therefore, the location of the proposal in the fringe of an existing (city) centre and on a key transport corridor is consistent with the strategic direction of the ACRPS and in particular Policy 2.6.5.6; and Given the conclusions made within the assessment of effects at section 5 of the report, it is considered that the proposed development, and its location, is appropriate. This meets Objective 2.6.1. Mr Lee, for the submitters, stated that the overall strategic intent of the ARPS and the Regional Growth Strategy . was to contain as much of Aucklands urban growth within defined and coherent Metropolitan Urban Limits21. Mr Chambers stated The directive in both the Auckland Plan and the Draft notified Unitary Plan to appropriate greater mixed intensification of Auckland is unequivocal, urgent, and compelling22 and Great North Road is one of Aucklands major transport arterial corridors, and one of the Auckland Plans key objectives is a major increase in
21 22
Para 3 of Mr Lees evidence Para 15 of Mr Chambers evidence 16
public transport, in large part through increased intensification of residential development along major transport routes23. In relation to Mr Lees and Mr Chambers evidence, as well as other submitters, they considered that the Bunnings proposal was contrary to both the Auckland Plan and the ACRPS (and the PAUP) due to: the significance of Great North Road as a major transport arterial corridor; the need to encourage land uses that support public transport use; the public investment made (by the Council and its Council Controlled Organisations) in public transport; and that intensified residential development needed to achieve this was not provided by this proposal. We note here that most of the submitters, including Mr Putt the submitters expert planning witness, considered that this site was ideal and appropriate for residential development and that this with a combination of other uses (smaller scale retail and workshops) would satisfy the strategic intent of the Auckland Plan, the ACRPS and the District Plans. While we understand the submitters sentiments and intent of what they would and would not prefer on this site, and they consider that this development represents a lost opportunity due to a lack of mixed use including residential, we must consider the proposal in the context of the strategic planning documents and the provisions of the operative and proposed District Plans. In this respect, at the broader strategic scale, the proposal is an intensification of the site, is an urban activity, and while Great North Road is one of Aucklands major transport arterial corridors, none of the traffic experts stated that it had capacity issues with respect to accommodating the proposed traffic generated from the Bunnings proposal24, and there are no provisions requiring only those activities that support public transport. This proposal will not adversely affect the functioning of Great North Road as an arterial corridor. It is our finding that at the broader strategic scale we agree with the Applicant and the reporting officer; that the proposal is not contrary to the relevant provisions of the Auckland Plan or the ACRPS. 11.6 The District Plan - The Mixed Use Zone The Mixed Use zone provisions form part of the wider Business zone objectives and policies of the District Plan. We have set out the general objectives of the Business zones below for completeness. While these are more general in nature than the specific provisions of the Mixed Use zone, they clearly encapsulate the overall purpose and intent of the business zones. They are: 8.3.1 - To foster the service, employment and productive potential of business activity while ensuring the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the City. 8.3.2 - To ensure that any adverse effect of business activity on the environment is avoided or reduced to an acceptable level. 8.3.3- To ensure that community values are recognised and balanced against the maintenance of public and private interests.
23 24
Para 16 of Mr Chambers evidence We note that issues were raised about the effects of traffic on Great North Road, especially at the intersection with King Street and this is addressed in more detail in the traffic section.
17
8.3.4- To provide for the safe, economic and convenient movement of people and goods within the business zones. It is within this broader context that we have considered the purpose and intent of the Mixed Use Zone as set out in the objectives for the zone and in the Zone Strategy. We set them out here in full and refer to them throughout this decision. Objective a) of the Mixed Use zone best sums up its purpose. It is: To allow the development of vibrant urban areas by enabling a diverse and compatible mix of residential, business, educational and leisure activities in areas of the City, close to the Central Area or existing town centres, which have easy access to public transport service. The related policies are: By applying a Mixed Use zone to allow the development and enhancement of mixed use urban areas where opportunities exist to live, work, learn, shop and undertake leisure activities. By providing for Mixed Use zone areas close to main public transport routes. By encouraging buildings to be adaptable to other suitable activities over time.
The expected outcome is: This zone, in time will lead to a quality urban environment which provides for a mix of residential, retail and business activities, close to the Central Area or existing retail centres. The Zone strategy provides a broader explanation of the zone. summary: It states in
The Mixed Use zone is applied to former business zoned areas of the City, which are located in close proximity to the Central Area or to existing Business 2 or 3 zoned centres, and which are experiencing an increase in residential activity. This increase in residential activity, coupled with the range of business and leisure activities which currently exist in these areas, is creating a unique and diverse mixed use urban environment. The zone is designed to enable the development of an urban environment which is supportive of alternative forms of transport such as public transport and cycling and adds economic vitality by increasing the diversity of services offered to employees during the day and residents at night. A high level of amenity which contributes to the liveability of the areas will be achieved by requiring new activities and new development to meet urban design criteria. While the zoning has an emphasis towards retail, residential and commercial activity it also recognises that other activities (some with a long and continued occupancy of sites now zoned Mixed Use) at an appropriate scale and suitably designed and operated can sit amongst these activities and will in fact provide a mutual benefit further enhancing the overall mixed use environment. Potential compatibility issues within the zone are managed through a range of assessment criteria and development controls. (bold emphasis added)
18
The zone, as opposed to each site, has an emphasis towards a mix of retail, residential and commercial activity. However other activities are also contemplated subject to being of an appropriate scale, design and operation. We address this below. The other specific Objectives and Policies relate to the effects of proposed activities (and buildings) in the zone while Objective c) also has an emphasis on amenity and compatibility. These are addressed in more detail later in the decision. They are: (b) Objective To ensure that any adverse environmental or amenity impact of activities within the zone on adjoining activities or on adjacent Residential or Open Space zones is avoided or mitigated. Policies By managing potential compatibility issues within development, between developments and their neighbours, and between developments and public spaces, including roads and open space, through the application of design criteria and rules, while recognising that amenity values in this zone are lower than in Residential zones. By limiting noise levels at the interface between neighbouring Residential zones and the Mixed Use zones, and within residential developments in the Mixed Use zones. By adopting controls which seek to protect privacy and amenity of occupants in adjoining Residential zones.
(c) Objective To encourage mixed use development which contributes to the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety, while recognising that these values are derived from a mixture of business activities and intensive residential development. Policies By requiring new developments to meet urban design criteria relating to streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety and building scale, form and layout. By offering bonuses in floor area for new developments, where specified plazas, landscaped areas pedestrian facilities and cycleways are provided.
11.7
Activities Provided for in the Mixed Use Zone The Bunnings proposal seeks to establish a Building Improvement Centre. While this is one overall activity it consists of a warehouse, a nursery/garden centre, retail of building/home improvement and other merchandise, cafe, offices, car parks and loading and unloading area. The proposal does not provide any residential activity. This was a constant theme with many of the submitters who considered that a residential component would better promote the purpose of the zone. The provisions of the Mixed Use zone do
19
not require that there be a residential component (or a mix of activities) on each site. The zone seeks to encourage a mix of uses across the zone (detailed more below including those which are permitted as of right). This point was clearly made to us by the Applicant and the Councils reporting officer. Mr Webb for the Arch Hill Residents also acknowledged this in his legal submissions stating, and to which we agree: The Society does not say there needs to be a mixed use of this particular Site, and nor I think does the Plan25 However we are unsure if Mr Putt, for the Arch Hill submitters, accepted this. He stated that Missing in the Councils and the applicants assessment is the form of development that would have been anticipated by any reasonable person in the redevelopment of the subject site. A complying development, even it was discretionary for some reason, would have presented residential apartments to the Dean Street frontage with balconies and a variety of fenestration treatments.26 Mr Putt, at 3.2 of his evidence, drew our attention to two other developments in the Mixed Use zone being the Quattro development at 444 Great North Road, being a full residential development (i.e. not a mix of uses) and that on the corner of Great North Road and Bond Street. This latter development he described as being a good example of the implementation of the Mixed Use Zone with retail along the street frontage engaging fully and activating the street with 2-3 levels of residential apartments above. While Mr Putt appears to consider that these developments are what is contemplated in the Mixed Use zone, particularly the residential component, we accept that the zone does not require a residential component or in fact a mix of uses on each site (e.g. the Quattro development). In determining if this activity per se is appropriate or not, it is useful to compare it against the activities that are contemplated in the Mixed Use zone. We accept that the District Plan does not provide for development of this site in the manner contemplated by the Applicant as a permitted activity. Further we note that under the provisions of the District Plan any new buildings within the Mixed Use zone or within 30 metres of residentially-zoned properties are not provided for as permitted activities and require resource consent approval. In addition, any development of the site is subject to consent requirements associated with the contamination hazard warning of the site. These consent requirements would apply to most proposals which sought to redevelop the site with new buildings irrespective of the proposed activity. At 8.7.7 Mixed Use Zone Activities the Table sets out the range of activities provided in the zone. We find that there is a range of activities of a similar nature to the proposal that are listed as permitted activities in the Mixed Use zone. These include offices, retail (up to 500m2 per site), storage and warehousing, light manufacturing and servicing contained within a building, restaurants, cafes and other eating places, and work rooms. Other permitted activities that could generate a range of effects similar to the proposed activity (traffic, noise, and amenity effects) include: Community Welfare facilities, Education facilities, Entertainment facilities (up to 500m2 per site), laboratories, Funeral Parlours, Healthcare services, laboratory activities, motor
25 26
Para 10 of Mr Webbs legal submissions. Para 3.8 of Mr Putts evidence. 20
vehicle service premises contained within a building, places of assembly (up to 500m2 per site) and premises for cultural activity and/or natural display. We also note that the AEE, evidence from the Applicant (Mr Norwell) and the reporting officer addressed the origins of the Mixed Use zone, with reference to the Councils earlier27 section 32 analysis report related to Proposed Plan Change 71 (which introduced the Mixed Use zone and included changes to the Business 4 zone). The commentary notes that the reason for applying a non-complying activity status for building improvement centres was related primarily to the standard physical requirements of such centres, and their contribution or otherwise to the general amenity of the area. The AEE and the section 42A report included an excerpt from paragraph 2.4.5.20 of that section 32 report regarding building improvement centres as follows: One of the main objectives of the Mixed Use zone is to achieve mixed use developments which contribute to the amenity of surrounding neighbourhoods in terms of streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety. This is achieved by encouraging activity and building, which fronts the street with main entries and windows overlooking the street and buildings and activities close to the street frontage. With the exception of tourist complexes, all of the above activities [including building improvement centres] traditionally require large areas of open and or paved space for vehicle storage and or manoeuvring as well as storage or display of goods for sale or hire. (bold emphasis added) While reference to this background does not have any effect on the activity status for the present proposal, we find it relevant as to why this activity was not provided for. As we address later, this proposal has a different typology to that envisaged by the former Auckland City Council when the rules for the Mixed Use zone were prepared. As we heard in evidence from the Applicant this proposal is atypical for a Bunnings warehouse. This was insofar as it internalises its parking within the building, the building fronts the Great North and King Street frontages and provides the main pedestrian entrance from Great North Road and vehicle entries directly from both Great North and King Street. Given the range and nature of the activities provided for in the zone either as of right or specifically provided for by way of resource consent, the effects they may generate and the activities proposed in the Building Improvement Centre, we do not find that the proposed activity per se is inappropriate or contrary to the provisions of the District Plan. It is the scale and compatibility of the proposed activity that we need to address (below) and the effects arising from the activity and its scale. Having determined that the activity per se is not inappropriate, we have addressed the proposal under four broad hearings The Building and Urban Design, Traffic/Transport Issues, Interface Matters (with the Residential 1 zone land) and Other Matters.
27
Approximately ten years ago. 21
11.8
The Building and Urban Design The mixed use and commercial area of Arch Hill and Grey Lynn is undergoing transition along Great North Road as a result of the Mixed Use zone provisions. Great North Road as a city street has an important corridor role, being an arterial transport route with public transport and walkability elements, but also with an intensifying activity mix and increasing scale of buildings addressing the street edge. The evidence of the Applicant and the submitters described the mix of uses, the changing and emergent character of the area, and differing views on the contribution that would be made by the proposed Bunnings development. We address this below in terms of the proposed building - its design and relationship to its three road frontages and the surrounding area. The purpose of the Mixed Use zone, as previously set out, is the development of vibrant urban areas enabling a diverse and compatible mix of residential, business, educational and leisure activities across the city. The intention is to maintain a compatible relationship between the activities within the Mixed Use zone and with the adjoining traditional residential areas. As part of maintaining a compatible relationship and ensuring good urban design outcomes all new buildings require consent (as a restricted controlled activity). The plan provisions seek to ensure good design and to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts by requiring new developments to meet urban design criteria relating to streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety and building scale, form and layout. The design criteria and rules require new development to be designed to complement and enhance both streetscape character and pedestrian amenity. In summary buildings should front roads and concentrate main entries and windows along road frontages. Solid blank walls along a road frontage should be avoided. New developments should be visually compatible in scale with the immediate streetscape. The District Plan anticipates that visual compatibility can be achieved through a variety of means, while still allowing buildings to achieve permitted height, floor area ratio and height in relation to boundary controls. Where larger buildings are inserted in areas with smaller buildings the extent to which the massing and design of these buildings ensures that they do not over-dominate the built scale of their surroundings is to be taken into account in the assessment of effects. The District Plan rules also require a restricted discretionary consent if a new building is located within 30m of the Residential 1, as is the case here28. Assessment criteria are specified in the Plan in relation to this. Additional criteria for specified activities apply to any permitted or controlled activity located within 30m of a residential zone, as is the case here29. Of particular note is: (g) Residential Zone Interface Of concern is the protection and maintenance of the amenity values of adjacent residential zones along the zone interface and, in particular, the visual and aural privacy. Various methods can be
28
Any permitted or controlled activity listed in the table including all new buildings and required off-street parking located within 30m of the Residential 1, 2a, 2b, 5, 6a, 7a, 7b and 7c zones. Given this application is non-complying, technically this rule does not apply however we have applied the relevant assessment criteria. 8.7.7.3. Discretionary Activities 8.7.7.3.1 Particular Matters to be Addressed. 22
29
used to ensure this, including the provision of buffer areas, separation distances and/or screening, and 8.7.7.3.2 Additional Criteria for Specified Activities assessment 8.7.7.3.2.a)ii). Vehicle access to and from the site must be located, where practicable, away from residential zoned sites to protect the aural and visual privacy. Where, for safety reasons, this is impracticable, adequate screening shall be provided in the form of fencing or landscaping in order to prevent adverse aural and visual impacts on adjacent residential zoned properties. We address these below: Mr Hume (the Applicants Architect) addressed the design process and the buildings appearance and material on each of its road frontages. He set out that the architectural treatment of the proposed building evolved through the design and consenting processes, including comments from the Urban Design Panel (UDP). A number of site and activity configurations were explored in attempting to achieve an outcome that reflected the sites context and location, to promote appropriate urban design outcomes and relationships with its surrounding environment. He, and Ms Skidmore (the Applicants Urban Design specialist) considered that the tools of urban design and architectural mitigation used or considered in the design of the proposal included articulation of building facades, stepping elevations and the roofline; colours and textures and building material variations; engaging with street edges by the placement of entries and active uses; landscape planting; window placement and the use of acoustic louvres (to the carparking areas) and semi-transparent mesh (around the garden centre/nursery). We also note that in Mr Humes evidence, Ms Skidmores urban design assessment (which attached the UDPs recommendation) and as reported in the section 42A report, the proposal was referred to the UDP on the 14th September 2012. The UDP was generally supportive of the development stating .and supports the intention to depart from the customary development model, in response to the distinctive conditions of the site and context. The UDP made a number of recommendations to improve the faade treatment of each street frontage. In response to this, the Applicant made a number of changes to the proposed faade modulation, edge treatments, pedestrian access points and garden centre as a result of feedback from the UDP. Ms Skidmore considered that overall the scale and form of the building was appropriate in relation to its surrounding context. She considered the layout and building design acknowledged and responded to the different function and character of Great North Road, King Street and Dean Street. Of particular note she stated, with reference to Great North Road, Unlike many bulk service and retail activities, the proposal achieves a high level of transparency and activation of the Great North Road street frontage30. This she said is due to the glazed treatment on Great North Road enabling viewing into the building (timber area and the caf) as well as the main pedestrian foyer (being fully glazed) which also provides some public space for the public barbecue area that has come to be somewhat of a trademark for Bunnings Warehouses31.
30
31
Para 4.3 of Ms Skidmores evidence. ibid 23
With respect to the Dean Street faade Ms Skidmore considered that the proposal had been designed to avoid overlooking of the residential properties to the south. She stated that The rear faade is set back from the boundary and is physically stepped providing relief to the faade and allowing for dense planting along a portion of the faade. The varied use of materials will also break down the mass of the faade to avoid over-dominance in relation to the residential properties on the southern side of the street32. Overall the Applicants Architect and Urban Designer both opined that the proposed building does not represent the traditional form of development for a Building Improvement Centre, and that the design had responded appropriately to the site and its context and satisfied the design criteria in the District Plan. Mr Rennie, a witness called by some of the submitters, is an Architect living in Bond Street and his home looks out to and over the applicants site33. While he accepted he was not giving expert evidence he raised a number of concerns about the design of the building and its relationship to the streets it fronts and the wider area. His comments were contrary to those of Ms Skidmore. In summary with respect to the Great North Road frontage he considered there was: Lack of activation to street the ground floor is occupied with carparking Minimal opportunity of chance encounters, public engagement or connection of the life of the street with the interior of the building A shop floor approximately 3.5 metres above the footpath Entry and exit predominantly by car Minimal eyes on the street Chamfered car crossings (on Great North Road) reduce the pedestrian amenity privilege vehicle movement. With respect to Dean Street Mr Rennie considered there was: Lack of activation to street the ground floor is occupied with carparking and there is no positive interface to the street Minimal opportunity of chance encounters, public engagement or connection of the life of the street with the interior of the building Entry and exit is entirely by truck Because there are no windows there are no eyes on the street The heavy vehicle crossing reduces the pedestrian amenity and privilege large vehicle movements. Mr Rennie, overall, considered that the building was fundamentally unsustainable. Mr Blunt, the Councils Urban Design Team Leader, reviewed Ms Skidmores assessment, and advised that From an urban design perspective Im generally in accord with Rebecca Skidmores assessment. I can support the application.
32 33
Para 6.1 of Ms Skidmores evidence Para 1A ii of Mr Rennies evidence. 24
However having heard all of the evidence Mr Blunt provided us with additional written commentary where he raised some issues and questions Mr Blunt said the UDP response to Great North Road and King Street (public-facing) was the focus of the Applicants advisors and the UDP, but he now appeared to have doubts about the interaction with Dean Street. He essentially concluded with two questions: However, is this site appropriate for this sized Bunning Warehouse? and Is this a good building for this site and its context?34 Having raised these questions Mr Blunt declined to state whether he still supported the proposal from an urban design view point. 11.9 Our Findings on the Design and Urban Design Aspects of the Proposal. We acknowledge that the Bunnings proposal is essentially a big box development, albeit with a different design model/typology from the standard Bunnings developments more commonly found in suburban/business areas. This proposal has a largely internal focus, including the car parking, and there are a number of levels rather than the conventional model of everything being on the one level. We have addressed each of the street frontages separately as they are each distinct having differing characteristics. The Great North Road faade We accept the Applicants experts opinion (and that of the UDP) that the faade treatment on Great North Road is appropriate in terms of the sites context and the design criteria set out in the District Plan. The Great North Road frontage is the public frontage of the building, and defines Great North Road as the main public face of the building. The horizontal extent of the building is broken by a series of distinct elements and different treatments i.e. the physical stepping of the building at the upper and lower levels, the different height, different faade materials, non-continuous verandah and colours. These all combine to create an appearance of discrete components and a cluster of building forms. We also note the building complies with the height limits in the District Plan, as well as the other bulk and location controls. While we accept that the there is activation and transparency at the Great North Road frontage, this positive interface is only achieved in part with the street environment. This is due to the configuration of the building with the shop floor being above the street (approximately 3.5 metres), the caf being slightly below the street level (800mm) with the views into the building being of the caf, stored goods, parked cars and a travelator at the main entrance. We accept that the main pedestrian entrance and a vehicle entry and exit are onto Great North Road and this does provide activation as well as the public barbeque space referred to earlier. Landscaping on the Great North Road site boundary is generally kept to a small scale to avoid competing with the building, although we accept that could be changed on the Great North Road frontage if the street is to have a stronger boulevard or avenue character in the future. Given that the road (and footpath) is
34
Mr Blunts officer comments under the heading The Bunnings offer. 25
controlled by Auckland Transport, it is that organisation that can determine what street trees are appropriate. From an urban design perspective, better activation could have been achieved by the proposal including more walk-up accessibility, shopfronts and sleeving of activities with more active edges on all street frontages, and windows. However this is not the proposal in front of us. Overall we are satisfied the Great North Road faade sufficiently satisfies the District Plan design criteria. The King Street faade We find that the King Street faade has been appropriately modulated by its design which include the vertical fins much like those of the Great North Road faade, as well as a mesh siding to the garden centre/nursery. Also the green wall proposed for the lower level of the King Street frontage is an appropriate urban design response to mitigate this otherwise blank facade, and in the use of this part of the building for cars arriving and leaving the site. A reliance on the effective mitigation provided by the green wall will require a high level of confidence that the planting will be installed and well-maintained for its long-term contribution to that mitigation. The Dean Street faade That part of Dean Street immediately behind the proposed development is a relatively narrow but two way cul de sac with a Residential 1 zoning on the southern side (and consisting of Victorian villas and cottages) and the Mixed Use zoning on the northern side (the subject site). Due to its width the traffic environment is slow moving with varying amounts of residential and commercial traffic. In terms of commercial traffic resident submitters estimated 1 3 trucks per day, with 3 5 when the Summit shirt factory was in full operation. Also the car sales yard used to bring in large car transporter trucks, but stopped this when requested by the residents due to amenity and safety concerns. The resident submitters accepted they were at the interface of the zones and also that the Mixed Use zone enabled substantially larger buildings than currently existed and that the site is currently significantly under-utilised. However, we were informed by many of the submitters that they had anticipated and hoped for a mixed use development with a stronger residential component and smaller scale retail and office/work room style development. They certainly expected less general and heavy commercial traffic, and wanted a more deferential faade presentation to Dean Street. The Applicants design response to Dean Street, and Mr Rennies view of it, has been set out above. A number of other submitters, in particular Ms A Aggrey and Mr Hopkins and Ms Fou Brown Hopkins who live opposite the site on Dean Street and Mr Whiley who owns a house opposite the site, also expressed considerable concern about this faade. They did not consider that the design of the Dean Street facade was appropriate, being too dominant and having a lack of activation other than the delivery vehicle entry and exit. We accept that the faades bulk will create some adverse effects on the visual and spatial amenity of the Dean Street residents and those nearby. Despite the faade being set back from the boundary, being physically stepped, having a varied use of materials and some landscaping and no signage, that nonetheless it is a tall, bulky facade with no windows and no ground level activity visible except truck deliveries. The issue for us is whether these effects are significant or not in the context of
26
what the District Plan allows or envisages and if those effects have been sufficiently avoided or mitigated. We set this out below. The District Plan manages the interface through development controls (including set-backs, height-in-relation-to-boundary and height limits). The Zone Strategy35 states: The Mixed Use zone is often in areas adjacent to residential or open space zones. The protection of amenity values between the Mixed Use zone and residential and open space zones is achieved through application of development controls at the interface. Mr Putt, the submitters expert planner, stated in relation to the Zone Strategy above: This important statement by building on the purpose of the zone, indicates in my opinion, that the development controls which include the activities to be promoted are the key to understanding how the interface with a sensitive Residential 1 Zone should occur. (bold emphasis added) Mr Norwell, the Applicants expert planner, and Mr Blakey, the Councils expert planner did not agree that the Development Controls included activities. We agree with Mr Norwell and Mr Blakey. The District Plan sets out at table 8.7.7 Mixed Use Zone Activities, those activities that are either permitted or require a resource consent. Section 8.8.10 Development Controls for Mixed Use Zone sets out the Development Controls for the zone including height and height in relation to boundary controls. We are satisfied that development controls in the context of the Zone Strategy means the physical parameters and not the activities. As set out above, the proposed building complies with the development controls. In this respect the scale of the proposed building and its effects at the interface with the Residential zone is one anticipated by the District Plan. That said we also accept the District Plan seeks to ensure good design outcomes and that adverse effects at the interface are avoided or mitigated and this can be achieved through design controls. We have set out the relevant interface plan objectives and policies earlier. key objective is b): The
To ensure that any adverse environmental or amenity impact of activities within the zone on adjoining activities or on adjacent Residential or Open Space zones is avoided or mitigated. It is also relevant to note that the objective of the Residential 1 zone is: To ensure the survival of the form and pattern of subdivision, buildings and streetscape in Auckland's early-established residential neighbourhoods36. Having considered all of the evidence we find the Dean Street faade is acceptable in terms of the District Plan criteria to avoid over-dominance to the residential properties on Dean Street. This is due to the faades set back, the stepping (to provide some relief to the faade), the varied use of materials (to help break down the mass), planting along a portion of the faade, and that it complies with the height and height in relation boundary controls.
35 36
Final paragraph pg B9. Decision No. [2013] NZEnvC 240 8th October 2013 27
We also accept that the Dean Street faade has been designed to avoid overlooking of the residential properties to the south. That is, it has no windows, and screening of the carpark area has been achieved by acoustic louvres, thereby ensure visual privacy. Visual privacy was reported to us as important by some submitters and Ms A Aggrey stated in this regard: As we are on the south side most of our sunlight is on our front decks. I have a high fence and others along the street have hedges to give some sense of privacy as we use our front decks a lot.37 It is our finding with respect to the Dean Street faade that there has been an emphasis on privacy and screening for amenity, at the expense of the southern part of the proposed building and its activities being able to engage with the street and the adjacent houses. This has both positive and adverse effects for the Dean Street residents. While the interface proposed between the mixed use and residential uses will have an impact on the amenity of Dean Street, it will not jeopardise the survival of the form and pattern of subdivision, buildings and streetscape in Auckland's early-established residential neighbourhoods, and given that the District Plan sets out a permitted bulk and location controls which are larger than the proposed Bunnings store, that level of adverse effect in our view is anticipated by the District Plan. Overall the adverse effects from the Dean Street faade treatment are not of a scale that warrant refusing consent or require Bunnings to redesign it. 11.10 Adaptable Reuse The following policy, to address Objective a) of the Mixed Use zone is By encouraging buildings to be adaptable to other suitable activities over time.
There were differing views in the evidence from the Applicant and submitters on how amenable the proposed building would be to adaptive re-use. It is our finding that the building and its mix of uses could be substantially altered if the building improvement centre activity and its car parking were no longer required in its current form. 11.11 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles We accept that the overall planning and development of this project has included consideration of CPTED principles. We were advised that Bunnings has comprehensive security arrangements in place both internally and externally for their stores. This includes security elements within the store design, layout, and materials and finishes which include CCTV surveillance, staff training and awareness and active management techniques. While these measures are also employed for overall public and staff safety and security, they are aligned to the key CPTED principles and include natural, organised and mechanical approaches. Given the specific site and the fact that the building is effectively built to the street edge boundary with well defined edges and has well defined vehicle and pedestrian routes, movement around the building is clear and does not allow for entrapment areas. Casual surveillance is also achieved on the Great North Road and King Street frontage. Opportunities for surveillance from both passing traffic and adjacent buildings are maximised. Dean Street is less well-served for CPTED
37
Pg 3 Amenity - of Ms Aggreys submission. 28
in terms of casual surveillance from Bunnings staff, due to the blank walls, inactive frontage, the landscaping and the unloading activity behind closed doors. However we are satisfied that the security measures outlined by Mr Boersen, the level of Bunnings and others traffic, and the range of surrounding activities such as the Samoan Church and the residential properties, will provide sufficient surveillance of this area. 11.12 Overall Findings and Reasons on the Building and Urban Design Overall, it is our findings, based on the evidence presented that the adverse amenity effects have been addressed and mitigated to the extent that they are anticipated by the Mixed Use zone and the District Plan provisions. The bulk of the proposed building and particularly its face to Dean Street were seen by the submitters to exacerbate rather than mitigate the scale of building authorised by the District Plans permitted activity standards. We accept that the building complies with the development controls of the Mixed Use zone. While there will be some adverse amenity effects, the greatest of these being at the Mixed Use/Residential 1 interface, we find these are not significant or out of scale with those anticipated for buildings within the Mixed Use zone. The positive effects at this interface are that there will be aural and visual privacy from the blank wall and acoustic louvres. However, using Dean Street as the inward goods access will have some aural effects (accepting this is public road). We consider this adverse effect is satisfactorily mitigated by the limitation on delivery hours and days and the numbers of truck movements permitted (see the traffic section below). From an urban design / building perspective the proposal is not contrary to objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans and the adverse effects have been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. 11.13 Traffic / Transport Issues Traffic issues were a major focus of the hearing and the evidence presented. As has been set out previously the submitters were opposed to the proposal largely due to its scale and the consequential effects as they saw them notably the traffic that would be generated from delivery vehicles and customers of the store. It was clear from all the traffic evidence presented that the Bunnings proposal would generate additional traffic movements to and from the site compared to existing activities on site and that this would have an effect on the operation of the surrounding local road network, as well as amenity values of the nearby residential properties. Given the significance and complexity of the traffic issue and the extent of the expert evidence we received, we have set out a more detailed summary of the evidence than in the Summary of Evidence section, so as to provide a clear context for the findings we have made. 11.14 Summary of Transportation Evidence Heard Applicant Traffic Design Group (TDG) was commissioned by Bunnings to undertake a transportation assessment for the proposal. Mr McKenzie, a traffic engineer with
29
TDG presented on behalf of the Applicant. His statement of evidence addressed the following key issues with the proposal being: the level of traffic likely to be generated as a result of the proposal and the manner in which this traffic could be accommodated on the surrounding road network; the ability of the site to cater for the anticipated parking and loading demands within the site; the adequacy and function of the proposed access and egress points; the effect of the proposal on the safety of the surrounding road network; and the compliance with the District Plan.
Mr McKenzies evidence provided a full description of the local traffic environment which we do not propose to replicate. He outlined the traffic surveys undertaken by TDG in the preparation of the application and outlined the existing traffic volumes, peak hour flows and road safety in the vicinity. His conclusions were that the resultant new trips generated by the proposed development when compared with the sites existing uses will have little impact on the function, capacity and safety of the local traffic environment. He acknowledged there would be some increase in queues and delays, but these would be modest in the context of the Great North Road environment and acceptable during traffic peak hours. Overall Mr McKenzie concluded that from the analyses he had undertaken that the proposed Bunnings store could be integrated into the local traffic environment in a manner that would ensure appropriate and acceptable levels of performance and safety.38 Mr McKenzie outlined that the proposed access strategy was devised to enable Bunnings to operate with minimal effects on other traffic or surrounding properties. Vehicle access was focused on King Street and to minimise vehicle trips and manoeuvres on Great North Road and Dean Street. He acknowledged that some submitters had requested that all access be provided from Great North Road but outlined that Great North Road was an arterial route with a traffic-through purpose, that both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport discouraged access from key arterial routes where alternative access is available from local roads. Mr McKenzie noted that this approach is reinforced by the District Plan that suggests access to arterial roads may be controlled and alternative access, via a side or rear road should be provided where ever feasible39. He went onto further outline that King Street had been chosen over Dean Street in response to concerns raised by residents about the level of traffic on Dean Street. King Street has considerably fewer direct residential interfaces. The Great North Road frontage would have a two-way left-in / left-out only driveway from the basement level 1 car park. This would reduce the number of driveways on Great North Road from four to one and prevent right turning movements in and out of the site. He advised us that this was a significant improvement across the Great North Road frontage of the site. The adjacent footpath along Great North Road would remain continuous over the driveway to reinforce pedestrian priority.
38
39
Para 5 of Mr McKenzies evidence. Para 63 of Mr McKenzies evidence. 30
Two accesses are proposed on King Street. The northern exit would provide a left turn exit only driveway onto King Street from the basement level 1 car park. It is proposed to be located some 15m south of Great North Road and will enable vehicles parked on level 1 who wished to travel onto Great North Road in an easterly direction to do so. The southern driveway would be a two-way access, located some 6m from Dean Street. This driveway would enable movements in all directions. Mr McKenzie anticipated that the majority of site traffic would access via this driveway. He estimated some 70% will enter the site and approximately 50% will exit via this driveway, including 5% right turning traffic dispersing into the local network via King Street southbound. The Dean Street access would be for inward goods (servicing) only. The main pedestrian access would be provided on the Great North Road frontage. Mr McKenzie outlined that to accommodate the changed traffic demand on the adjacent road network the Applicant had initially proposed a reconfiguration of the Great North Road and King Street intersection to allow for a two lane approach to the intersection on King Street, allowing separate left turn and right turn out lanes onto Great North Road. In response to the Auckland Transport preference to retain the existing layout, this reconfiguration did not form part of the notified proposal. In his evidence Mr McKenzie stated that while he was comfortable that the development could be accommodated regardless of there being a single or double lane approach from King Street to the intersection, he did propose an alternative arrangement that he believed would provide a better overall solution with respect to delay and pedestrian provision. This alternative set out above involved the removal of the Fan Trail footpath buildout from the western kerb of King Street at its intersection with Great North Road, and replacing it with a narrowing and surface treatment (e.g. colouring and cobblestone) approximately 6m back from Great North Road. This would enable the provision of separate right and left turning lanes at the King Street give way line to enhance performance and reduce delays for King Street users. It would also enhance the performance of the intersection by providing additional storage for turning vehicles, and prevent vehicles turning right or left from blocking each other. It would also serve to provide adequate space for trucks to make turns in and out of the intersection. All servicing at the proposed Bunnings Warehouse will take place within the Inwards Goods area, located at the south-western corner of the site with separate entry and exit points off Dean Street. The proposed loading facilities would only be used for goods receiving. The servicing area will be served by a single entry only driveway located on Dean Street approximately 55m from the intersection with King Street. The truck will then travel through a truck waiting area until it reaches a 9m diameter turntable, where the truck will be rotated and unloaded as required. The truck will then be rotated to face the egress some 20m west of the ingress and exit onto Dean Street in a forward motion. Two loading spaces capable of catering for 8m trucks would be accommodated on site i.e. the truck waiting area and truck turntable. Dean Street is currently used as the main loading point for the existing on-site activity, and from his observations is capable of accommodating the manoeuvring of an 8m truck, with trucks currently reversing into an off-street loading bay. In Mr McKenzies opinion the proposed development would improve the operations on Dean Street by removing reverse manoeuvring of heavy vehicles on Dean Street. He believed the combination of the restrictions on the number of deliveries (i.e. 35 trucks per day) and size of vehicles (i.e. restricted to single unit trucks) and the servicing hours (between 7.00am- 5.00pm) would adequately meet the sites needs and would operate in a way that avoided reverse manoeuvring on Dean
Street, thus improving safety on Dean Street. He indicated that some obstruction to driveways and car parks may occur as trucks travelled between King Street, but this was expected due to the narrow and slow environment in Dean Street and neighbouring streets. He believed these short delays, as trucks travelled past, was acceptable. He noted neither the Councils nor Auckland Transports transport experts raised concerns with the scale of expected servicing trips to or from the site. In relation to onsite parking, Mr McKenzie acknowledged the parking provision for the proposal was substantially less than the District Plan requirement for Building Improvement and Hire Centres of 1 space per 20sqm GFA. The proposed development incorporates a total of 218 parking spaces provided over two levels (including eight mobility spaces and two trailer parking spaces). The number of proposed parking spaces is significantly below the District Plan requirement. Mr McKenzie referred us to the earlier TDG parking demand surveys undertaken at other Bunnings Warehouse stores throughout the country to determine the actual parking demands. These surveys included both staff as well as customer parking demands. From his analysis of the survey results the indicative maximum design demand was 1 space per 66sqm GFA. Application of this rate to the proposed development floor area produces a peak demand of 127 spaces. He acknowledged that during occasional peak trading weekends, such as Labour weekend and the approach to Christmas that Bunnings can experience a temporary parking demand increase. Using the survey information collected from the Bunnings Warehouse in Porirua, he indicated this was in the order of 30% above normal peak demand. Applying this 30% factor to the normal peak demand he established that this would increase the maximum weekend parking demand for the proposal to 165 spaces. He concluded the amount of parking was sufficient to meet and exceed the practical peak parking demands of the site and would avoid overflow parking onto the surrounding streets. The proposal has implications for the arrangement and number of on-street parking spaces that from Mr McKenzies evidence results in an overall loss of six on-street parking spaces. The proposed access arrangements on Great North Road with the removal of four of the existing driveways will result in the provision of an additional parking space on Great North Road. The proposed access arrangements in King and Dean Streets will also result in changes to the amount of on-street parking. Mr McKenzie outlined the loss of 8 kerbside parking spaces in King Street arose from compliance with the NZ Transport Authoritys guide for visibility at driveways (RTS_6) which would result in safety improvements. Dean Street currently allows parallel parking on both sides and with only two driveways required for the proposal this will enable an additional parking space on the northern side of Dean Street. Mr McKenzie indicated there would be significant improvements in pedestrian amenity and safety comparison to the existing situation particularly in Dean Street. These improvements would arise from the reduction in the number of driveways, the continuous footpath over all driveways and the removal of reversing vehicles in Dean Street. Submitters The majority of submitters that presented to the Panel raised traffic concerns particularly the impacts of the Bunnings proposal on the functioning of the local network, the operation of the Great North Road/King Street intersection, the use of
32
Dean Street by heavy vehicles and the impacts on the availability of on-street parking. The submitters, the Arch Hill Residents and Kindercare Learning Centres engaged their own transport experts in support of their respective submissions. Mr Dayaram an experienced transport planner and traffic engineer appeared on behalf of the Residents and Mr Williams an equally experienced traffic engineer on behalf of the Kindercare Learning Centres. Mr Dayarams evidence raised concerns about inconsistencies in the assessment of the parking standards in the TDG Transportation Assessment which he asserted should have used a 99 percentile vehicle in the design layout. As a consequence he asserted that larger vehicles would require more time to manoeuvre into and out of the spaces resulting in congestion within the parking area which could extend onto King Street. His evidence also raised concerns about the continual activity related to customer vehicle and service truck movements throughout the week which would contribute to a significant reduction in amenity of the local network and consequently on the local area. He asserted the vehicle trip generation rates used in the Applicants transportation assessment had been significantly underestimated. He noted the trip generation analysis was developed using data from other Bunnings stores throughout New Zealand. His opinion was informed by surveys undertaken by Arch Hill Residents at the Mt Wellington and Mt Roskill Bunnings that showed significantly higher peak rates than in the Applicants transportation assessment. In his opinion the use of data from other Bunnings stores in Auckland would have provided a more robust and more accurate analysis. He also raised concerns in relation to the Applicants desire to modify the layout of the King Street/Great North Road intersection to a two lane exit on to Great North Road and reduce the impacts of queuing on King Street. He directed our attention to the concerns raised by Auckland Transport staff in the memorandum to the reporting planner that opposed amending the layout. Without the modification to the King Street layout, Mr Dayaram believed there would be significant adverse queuing and safety effects at both the King Street intersections with Great North Road and Dean Street. He also highlighted the impacts any change to the intersection layout would have on pedestrian safety, both the option of introducing a two exit layout and an alternative to relocate the raised table further south on King Street and to narrow the road at this point. Again he directed us to the comments of both Auckland Transport staff and the Councils traffic peer reviewer that opposed this alternative arrangement. In relation to the loading, Mr Dayaram asserted the development failed to comply with the District Plan loading space requirement. He noted that the available manoeuvring space is very tight and that the additional truck movements turning into King Street would worsen the overall safety of the intersection for both pedestrians and existing vehicles. In addition to the proposed 40 heavy vehicles visiting the site each day, there would also be 20 courier vehicles potentially using Dean Street, which would result in conflicts between vehicles travelling in opposite directions and could result in the need for large trucks or other vehicles to reverse west along Dean Street or out into the Dean Street/King Street intersection. In his opinion this would further exacerbate traffic congestion on the local road network. He highlighted that the transportation assessment had not undertaken any queuing analysis of loading activities and the loading requirements of courier vehicles had not been considered and would further increase demands on the loading space. He concluded that one loading space was insufficient and would lead to adverse effects on Dean Street that are more than minor.
He noted that the loss of on-street parking in the area, where residents parking was limited, would be very noticeable and would result in the demand for parking being pushed further out onto existing streets. In relation to access to the site, Mr Dayaram expressed the view that a significant vehicle generating activity such as that proposed should have all of its vehicle access on a main arterial road. He disagreed with Mr McKenzies assessment that providing the main access on Great North Road would likely result in greater delays all round and that placement of the majority of the site access on King Street is in accordance with District Plan strategies. He cited the District Plan function of local roads is to provide direct access to abutting properties40 and It is desirable to keep through or extraneous traffic flow on local roads to a minimum.41 He went on to state that in his opinion by proposing vehicle access on a local road for the proposed development, the resultant traffic could be termed extraneous. In his view the continual activity related to customer and service vehicles visiting the site throughout a typical week would contribute to a significant reduction in amenity of the local road network and on the local area. In conclusion he stated his expert view that the traffic effects resulting from the proposed Bunnings Warehouse activity would result in adverse effects on the surrounding area that would be more than minor and the application should be declined on traffic grounds. Mr Williams evidence provided an overview of a number of potential effects of the proposed activity on the safety and wellbeing of the users of the Kindercare Learning Centre (Kindercare) located on the south western corner of King Street and Dean Street and other road users. His evidence detailed the operation of Kindercare which has a roll of 50 children aged between 6 months and four years old up to school age. The centre operates Monday to Friday over the full year from 7.30am-5.00pm. He presented the result of his traffic survey of traffic activity at the centre during 7.30-9.00am to confirm the pattern of traffic activity was similar to other Kindercare facilities that showed peak during the morning hour, with lower volumes in the afternoon. Mr Williams also raised concern with the King Street/Great North Road intersection. He questioned the modelling undertaken by the Applicant, preferring his own analysis that suggested that delays for traffic leaving King Street are already very high and would only be exacerbated by additional traffic. He also raised concerns about the capacity setting in the model which he felt assumed much better traffic conditions than in fact exist. From his analysis the delays were large and queues exceeded the capacity of the King Street approach. He also addressed the matters raised by Auckland Transport in relation to the Applicants proposals to reconfigure the intersection layout and the desire to maintain pedestrian priority. Lastly he addressed the proposed access arrangements for the site. He raised concerns about the adequacy of the parking layout to accommodate the uplift of bulky materials due to the constrained layout of the exit and entry ramp at the King Street entry. These vehicles he believed would seek to use the Dean Street loading area, increasing the level of servicing traffic in Dean Street. He also outlined his concerns about the ability of Dean Street to accommodate the various traffic movements. Through a series of photographs he illustrated his concerns
40
41
Para 11 of Mr Dayarams evidence Ibid 34
about the ability of this part of the road network to accommodate the vehicle manoeuvres associated with a 5-tonne truck accessing and exiting King and Dean Streets and the implications if an arriving truck was to meet a departing vehicle in Dean Street, thereby necessitating a reverse movement out of Dean Street and across King Street. He went onto express his opinion that the vehicle manoeuvres that were likely to arise in the course of the operation of the sites loading facility in Dean Street cannot be contemplated or allowed on a public road. His overall conclusion was that the effects (and uncertainties) confirmed his impression that the traffic-related aspects of the application did not present a comprehensive or viable solution to the traffic needs of the proposed activity. The Council Mr Hancock a traffic engineering consultant was engaged by the Council to peer review the TDG Transportation Assessment that formed part of the application. In his written report that formed part of the Councils section 42A report, he took no issue with the TDG methodology in relation to trip generation and traffic distribution. He found the method used to determine the trip rate for the Grey Lynn store to be acceptable and the assumptions on the directional split of traffic appropriate. His report outlined that the most significant effect arising from the proposal was the operation of the King Street approach with the intersection with Great North Road. He believed that the effects of the increased traffic volumes on the Great North Road/King Street intersection are dependent on the configuration of this intersection. He concluded that: Overall the development of the Bunnings will have an effect on the operation of the Great North Road/King Street intersection, making it more difficult for existing users of King Street to exit onto Great North Road. However, by and large this effect will be largely constrained to a Saturday when the Bunnings store is typically at its busiest. The increase in delay on a Saturday is anticipated to be approximately 14 to 30 seconds per vehicle depending on the final configuration of the King Street intersection. There will be a noticeable increase in delay, and will generate additional queuing on King Street. However from a traffic engineering perspective, the intersection will still function within its overall capacity with the inclusion of the proposed Bunnings store. The SIDRA results show, for all options assessed, that the King Street approach of the intersection will operate, at worst, with a Level of Service E, which is marginally worse than its current operation on a Saturday, but still within the capacity with respect to the operation of the intersection. Later in his report, Mr Hancock noted a difference in opinion that had arisen with Auckland Transport with respect to the design of this intersection. He had been advised that Auckland Transport want the current form of the intersection retained for pedestrian amenity reasons. Mr Hancocks undertook an assessment of the intersection operation under these conditions and found the intersection would still operate sufficiently albeit that delays and queues on King Street will be slightly worse than that anticipated by the Applicants assessment. In relation to onsite parking provision, Mr Hancock concluded the proposed provision suitably met the anticipated demand and that the shortfall would not result in any parking effects on the surrounding network.
35
In relation to the on-street parking situation, Mr Hancock noted the formation of the new site accesses and the removal of six on-street parking spaces. He highlighted that Auckland Transport had raised concerns about the Applicants revised onstreet parking layout and the possibility of this restricting Dean Street to one way traffic at all times. He felt that given the low volumes of traffic using this part of Dean Street, coupled with clear sightlines along it, that the proposed changes were acceptable. Mr Hancocks report included the memorandum from Ms Vasisht a Principal Consent Specialist at Auckland Transport dated 19 August 2013. We understand from this memorandum that Auckland Transport believes the site would be more suitable for a higher-density mixed use environment which will be compatible with the transport functions of Great North Road transport corridor. In response to the proposed initial alteration to the King Street intersection Ms Vasisht indicated that Auckland Transport did not support the proposal. She concluded the proposal to widen the King Street intersection would provide additional capacity at the Great North Rd / King St intersection at the expense of pedestrian priority and amenity. From Auckland Transports perspective the principal benefits of the proposals would be confined to Bunnings peak hour operations on Saturday afternoon while having a detrimental effect on Great North Roads function as part of the Frequent Service Network and the need to provide a high level of service for pedestrians. In recommending no change to the King Street/Great North Road intersection, Ms Vasishts memorandum went on to indicate that even though the performance of the intersection would be within an acceptable operational capacity, the increase in delay to the current situation would be noticeable, and that this would be particularly hazardous for right turning traffic as it can result in motorists taking risks to enter the main stream of traffic. For this reason she recommended the inclusion of a condition to widen the flush median on Great North Road east of the Great North Road/King Street intersection and the imposition of a review condition to monitor the safety of the intersection following the commencement of activities on the site. In relation to heavy vehicle traffic on Dean Street, Ms Vasishts memorandum raised no particular concerns and seemed satisfied with the proposed service arrangements so long as an Inwards Goods Management Plan was prepared and submitted. In relation to submitters concerns about on-street parking, Ms Vasishts outlined that the proposal was not expected to result in any net change to the parking supply in the surrounding network. She noted the removal of on-street parking in the vicinity of Great North Road, King Street and Dean Street for safety purposes. She also recommended the imposition of conditions to changes proposed to the road reserve i.e. removal and creation of vehicle crossings, installation of canopies and other changes to the road reserve. Ms Vasisht did not appear at the hearing and we were therefore unable to question her directly on this matter or in relation to the Applicants suggested alternative configuration of the King Street intersection or rearrangements of the on-street parking layout, including the reduction in the number of parking spaces. It would have been helpful to us had she been at the hearing.
36
11.15 Our Findings and Reasons Traffic Generation It was clear from all the traffic evidence presented that the Bunnings proposal would generate additional traffic movements to and from the site compared to existing activities on site and that this would affect the operation of the surrounding local road network. From the evidence presented by the Applicant, the Bunnings peak operating hours will occur at a different time from the background traffic period i.e. the principal increases in traffic generation will be on the weekends. All traffic experts agreed that the principal issue was the operation of the King Street/Great North Road intersection. Both the Applicant and the Councils traffic experts recommended the modification of the existing layout to enable a two way exit arrangement from King Street on to Great North Road. Such an approach would in their view reduce the queuing lengths and time delays. While we were not adverse to such an arrangement which would, from the evidence presented, benefit vehicle traffic exiting King Street, we were cognisant of the memorandum from Auckland Transport that opposed such an arrangement. Auckland Transport is the road controlling authority and the ultimate decision maker with respect to any changes to the road network. Auckland Transports view was that such an alteration to the King Street intersection layout, while directly benefiting the operation of the Bunnings Warehouse, would have a detrimental impact on pedestrian movements and safety in the location. It was noted that the adverse effects on the performance of the intersection would be confined to Bunnings peak hours of operation i.e. Saturday afternoon. Auckland Transport considers providing a higher level of service and amenity for pedestrians is essential particularly as Great North Road is identified as a Frequent Service Network in the Draft Regional Public Transport Plan. We note that the traffic experts for the Applicant, Council and Auckland Transport all agreed that if the existing configuration of the intersection was retained that while there would be an increase in vehicle queues and delays that the intersection would remain within its capacity. Based on this advice we are satisfied that the traffic generation resulting from the proposal can be accommodated within the local road network and without changes to the King Street/Great North Road intersection. In relation to Mr Williams evidence about likely delays in the peak hour we agree with the points raised by Mr Kirkpatrick in his right of reply that the scenarios described rely on the Bunnings peaks to coincide with the peaks for other road users and that from the evidence provided in support of the application this was not the case. Servicing and Loading We agree with Mr Kirkpatrick in his opening legal submissions that Dean Street is a public road which runs between areas zoned mixed use and residential, and both sets of frontage have rights of access and use. As confirmed by Mr Hancock, from a traffic engineering perspective, Dean Street is a suitable street from which to direct loading to and from the site. We are also satisfied that contrary to the view expressed by Mr Dayaram the proposal does meet the District Plan requirements in terms of the number of loading spaces. The Applicant originally proposed to restrict deliveries to between Monday and Friday (7:00am to 6:00pm), with up to 40 goods deliveries per day (by 5 to 9 tonne
37
rated commercial vehicles). These movements would be limited to a maximum of one such goods delivery vehicle onsite in any 15 minute period. The application was subsequently modified to reduce the daily limits to 35 goods deliveries, and reduce the delivery hours to 5:00pm. With the exception that on 4 days per calendar month this can be increased to 40 goods delivery vehicles (being a 5 to 9 tonne rated heavy commercial vehicle) to the site each day and a maximum of one goods delivery vehicle on the site in any 15 minute period. From our assessment of all the traffic expert evidence in relation to the servicing and loading issues of the proposal we have come to the conclusion that with appropriate management of the heavy vehicle traffic serving the site, in particular the restrictions on the size, hours and number of deliveries (see below in terms of the reduced number of deliveries offered by the applicant), the proposed loading facility accessed from Dean Street will be able to operate efficiently. We also accept that delivery traffic can be managed by Bunnings via the Inwards Goods Management Plan, which, along with other traffic related limitations, is imposed as a condition of consent. In this respect Mr Boersen outlined to us the relationship and contractual arrangements Bunnings has with those delivering merchandise to the site. It is such that Bunnings has a high degree of control over how and when vehicles will deliver to the site. We note the Applicants offer to further reduce the number of delivery vehicles to a total of 24 vehicles and in particular the number of trucks between the hours of 7.00am and 9.00am and between 3.00pm and 5.00pm to one vehicle per hour. From a traffic and local amenity perspective we see this further reduction, particularly in the morning peak, as being significant in terms of avoiding adverse effects. The reduction in the number of delivery vehicles visiting the site in the morning and evening peak, combined with the Inwards Goods Management Plan should reduce the potential conflict arising as local residents leave the area to go to work or attend school. These times also coincide with the peak times for pick up and drop off times of the adjacent Kindercare facility and the St James Kindergarten. We further note that this scale of traffic also needs to be seen in the context of what could occur as of right in terms of traffic movement (i.e. largely uncontrolled) given the range of permitted activities set out earlier in this decision. Concerns were raised about heavy vehicles manoeuvring through Dean Street. We note that this part of Dean Street is a two way dead end street. The configuration of this part of Dean Street creates a slow speed environment. This in combination with the limitation imposed on both the size and the frequency of heavy vehicles visiting the site throughout the day will minimise the overlapping of vehicles arriving and leaving the site. The proposed configuration of the onsite loading arrangements means that should there be an overlap between vehicles arriving and leaving the site, that the arriving vehicle can be accommodated on site without obstructing the movement of vehicles on Dean Street. Mr Williams raised concerns with the possible use of the Dean Street loading facility by vehicles associated but not directly controlled by the Applicant. While we cannot rule out this possibility, if such activity was to occur it would not accord with the application and be a Council enforcement matter. Further we agree with Mr McKenzie that the overall loading arrangement will eliminate the need for heavy vehicles to reverse manoeuvre from Dean Street, which will further improve the operation of Dean Street.
38
Parking Demands All traffic experts were in agreement that the number of parking spaces for the proposed development was sufficient to deal with the expected customer numbers and staff requirements at peak times. In this regard we found Mr Williams survey work particularly helpful. Mr Williams suggested that the amount of proposed parking, while significantly below the District Plan requirement was far in excess of the demand for the facility and suggested that we should consider reducing the on site parking numbers. In light of the submitters concerns about the availability of parking in the general locality, we felt such an action was unwise particularly in light of expert traffic evidence that the local network was able to accommodate the likely traffic generation characteristics of the proposal with no more than a minor adverse effect on the safety and efficiency of the adjacent road network. Pedestrian Safety As outlined above, Auckland Transport in particular was concerned about pedestrian safety particularly as Great North Road is identified as a Frequent Service Network and to ensure that pedestrians are given priority over vehicle movements in this locality. We accept that pedestrian safety is a particularly important consideration having heard from submitters about the level of pedestrian activity in the general area including that associated with the St James Kindergarten and the Kindercare facility. In light of the memorandum from Auckland Transport we agree for reasons of pedestrian safety that the existing configuration of the King Street/Great North Road intersection shall be maintained including the existing footpath layout. The introduction of additional vehicle crossings and traffic within the surrounding road network was identified as matters that had the potential to compromise pedestrian safety. The proposed design of the vehicle entrances and exits to the site have been assessed as providing clear sightlines so there should be no adverse effect on pedestrian safety. In addition, pedestrian amenity and safety around the site and on adjacent footpaths will be improved as the proposal rationalises the number of vehicle crossings in particular on Dean Street and Great North Road. We agree with Mr Hancocks recommendation that the footpaths around the development site remain continuous over the driveways, and are at the same level as that of the surrounding footpath, clearly signalling pedestrians have priority over vehicles and to avoid trip hazards where the driveways intersect with the footpath. 11.16 Overall Findings and Reasons on Traffic Related Matters It is our overall finding, for the reasons set out above, that the roading network, subject to the conditions of consent, can safely and efficiently accommodate the increased traffic generated by the Bunnings proposal. Moreover the offered reduction in goods vehicles delivery significantly reduces any concerns we had, particularly in terms of amenity issues for the residential neighbours but also in terms of the logistics and practicalities of Bunnings managing delivery traffic via the Inwards Goods Management Plan. We find that the adverse traffic effects have been appropriately avoided or mitigated such that they are acceptable, and note that the consent controls the amount of Bunnings traffic on Dean Street in particular; something which may not be able to be achieved had the sites been developed for a range of permitted activities.
39
For the reasons set out, the proposal is not contrary to the relevant transport and land use objectives and policies of the District Plans and with the conditions of consent we have imposed we find that the adverse effects have been avoided, remedied or mitigated to the extent that they are acceptable. 11.17 Interface Matters (with the Residential 1 zone land) As we have already set out, a major consideration in determining whether this application meets the purpose of the RMA is the effects at the interface with the Residential 1 zone to the south of the site. The relevant land use provisions of the Mixed Use and Residential 1 zones have been set out above. We accept this is a sensitive interface and needs to be carefully considered. 11.18 The Building and its Design Our findings on the building and its design, especially the faades on King and Dean Streets, have been fully addressed above. We have found in relation to this matter that the buildings scale and design satisfies the District Plan provisions (objectives, policies and assessment criteria). 11.19 Traffic Our findings on the traffic effects, especially as it relates to King and Dean Streets, have been fully addressed above. We have found in relation to this matter that the traffic effects can be appropriately managed and the provisions of the District Plan (objectives, policies and assessment criteria) are satisfied and the adverse effects acceptable. 11.20 Operational Noise Mr Robinson the noise expert for the Applicant set out in his evidence the existing acoustic ambient environment. According to his calculations the ambient sound level during the day time ranged between 45 and 66 dB LA10 (15 min) (average:56 decibels)42 while the background sound ranged between 40 and 55 dB LA95 (15 min) with an average of 50 decibels43. He considered these sound levels were typical for an urban environment. Mr Robinson set out the relevant District Plan noise provisions and the sound levels predicted by the operation of the Bunnings store. This included consideration of the traffic noise (using the TDGs estimates of 2,400 customer trips, 40 heavy goods delivery vehicles44 and 20 courier vans), the noise emission from mechanical plant, as well as from the PA system (which Mr Robinson set out in some detail how to better control noise from the PA including positioning the loud speakers away from dwellings, music be kept to background level and restricting the hours of use). We accept Mr Robinsons evidence, noting it was not contradicted by the Councils expert and no other experts were called to present noise evidence. He was of the view that subject to the following mitigation and management the operational noise of the proposal would comply with the permitted noise levels under the District Plan. In summary the mitigation and management controls were: The limited hours of the operation generally 7.00 am to 7.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.00 am to 6.00 Saturdays, Sundays and Public holidays;
42 43
Para 3.4 of Mr Robinsons evidence. ibid 44 Note this number has been limited to 24 by a condition of consent 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 LUC No.: R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit) 40
Goods delivery vehicles being limited to 7.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday only with only one per hour in the peak times; Limiting the use of the PA within the nursery area from 8.00 to 7.00 pm Monday to Friday and 9.00am to 6.00 on Saturday/Sunday; The acoustic fence to screen the good delivery, the rapid opening/closing door for the goods vehicles, the internal truck turntable to prevent reverse manoeuvring (less noise) and the acoustic louvres for the carpark ventilation; and The mechanical plant apertures located towards Great North Road and away from Dean Street.
We accept that the noise emissions comply with the District Plan provisions and appropriate conditions of consent have been imposed. Overall any noise effects will be no more than minor. 11.21 Kindercare Retaining Wall Kindercare was concerned that the impact of increased traffic from the proposed development, and in particular heavy vehicles, would adversely affect the stability and functioning of the existing retaining wall on Kindercares Dean Street frontage. It was not entirely clear if this wall was wholly within the Kindercare site or partly in the road (controlled by Auckland Transport), but this does not change our findings on this matter. While we understand the concern of Kindercare, we agreed with the Applicants legal counsel, where he addressed this issue at para 30 of his closing legal submissions that Kindercares concerns about its retaining walls are not relevantly addressed as part of this application for these reasons: a. Dean Street is a public road serving a Mixed Use frontage; b. Delivery vehicles serving Bunnings are lawful traffic on such a road;
c. Kindercares retaining wall(s) appear to exist to provide it with a level front yard rather than for a roading purpose; d. Kindercare has no right to undermine the road; and so e. The protection of the walls and the yard is a matter for Kindercare. 11.22 Construction Effects (including construction noise and traffic) Evidence was given by Mr McKenzie (traffic), Mr Robinson (construction noise), Mr Culley (earthworks and sediment control), Mr Freer (drainage issues) and Mr Hillman (potentially contaminated land and ground water). All of these witnesses set out that with appropriate management and conditions of consents construction effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. With respect construction two key management plans are required: Construction and Traffic Management Plan; and
41
Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan.
These provide a detailed list of matters, including construction hours, that must be addressed and how matters related traffic, noise and vibration are to be managed, particularly with respect to the residential properties to the south. We accept that there will be disruption to the surrounding area during the construction period, and note this was of concern to a number of submitters and in particular Kindercare and Mr Hopkins and Ms Brown Hopkins. It is inevitable that this site would be redeveloped at some stage, be it for this or some other development. It is inevitable that in an urban context there will be impacts during the construction period. As set out in the conditions management plans, with detailed requirements, including all construction vehicles using Great North Road and not King and Dean Streets (as far as is practicable), are required, which will ensure as far as is possible the adverse effects are managed and mitigated. 11.23 Earthworks, Sediment Control Ground Contamination, and Ground Water Draw Down Earthworks, Sediment Control The proposal involves the excavation of two basement parking levels below the existing ground level of Great North Road, and the construction of a warehouse store. This involves the removal of approximately 6,650m2 to excavate the basement levels and to construct retaining walls, with approximately 22,200m3 of earthwork material cut to waste. This requires the construction of retaining walls along the western, northern and eastern boundaries of up to 5 metres in height (and adjacent to the road reserves of King Street and Great North Road, and the site at 308-310 Great North Road). The earthworks and construction process has the potential to disturb land which is contaminated, generate sediment runoff from earthworks, groundwater drawdown and construction-related noise, vibration and traffic. This may affect the amenity values of the surrounding environment, affect water quality and affect the stability of surrounding land and buildings. These matters are addressed below with the traffic effects having been addressed earlier. Mr Culley set out that earthworks and sediment (excavations) can be undertaken on the site provided appropriate and standard operating controls are implemented. He commented that the re-redevelopment of this site is typical of main urban brown field sites, and there was nothing unusual about this site. We have imposed appropriate conditions of consent to ensure that earthworks and sediment control are in place to ensure there are no more than minor adverse effects. Ground Contamination The proposal involves the redevelopment of a site identified as being subject to past activities that may have involved contaminated building materials and soil (historical presence of a motor vehicle servicing activity). Redevelopment of the site therefore has the potential to compromise the health of construction workers and future users of the site. The site is identified on the Councils records as being contaminated. Consent is therefore required 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.
42
The Applicant supplied a Detailed Site Investigation Report prepared by Tonkin & Taylor dated November 2012 which outlined the extent to which contaminants may be present on the site, which is expected to relate to the storage of diesel in an underground storage tank, automobile servicing activities, storage of paint and imported fill. Mr Hillman set out in this evidence that he has considered the potential for ground contamination and assessed it against the NES. Mr Hillman stated that the proposed development presents no significant ground contamination risk to human health or surface/ground water quality, subject to proper disposal of fill material45. With respect to this matter we have imposed appropriate conditions of consent. Groundwater Drawdown The proposed excavations will extend down to RL 58.5m for the lower basement floor. A report provided with the application by Tonkin & Taylor advised that this will be below the level at which groundwater has been measured. Calculations contained in the report indicate potential settlement in the order of 5mm to 10mm within 5 metres of the excavations, which is considered to have less than minor settlement effects on adjacent properties. The report recommended the inclusion of several conditions to further mitigate the risk of deformation of adjacent structures, incorporating specific construction management plan requirements. The Tonkin & Taylor report concluded that on the basis of site investigation results and assessment findings, the works are considered to be consistent with the permitted activity standards of Rule 6.5.76 of the RP:ALW. However, due to the potential for differing interpretations of this rule, the Applicant opted to seek consent (as a restricted discretionary activity) and the proposal has been considered against the relevant criteria. Mr Freer, in his evidence regarding geotechnical matters concluded that the proposed basement works and permanent drainage arrangements are appropriate and expected to have less than minor adverse effects on the surrounding land beyond 5 metres of the perimeter of the basement walls. There is some risk of cosmetic cracking of the masonry walls of the abutting building (on the corner of Great North Road and Bond Street zoned Mixed Use), but again this will be appropriately managed in consultation with the owner of that building (who had not lodged a submission in respect of the application). We find that the issues of groundwater draw down can be appropriately managed, and relevant conditions of consent have been imposed. Overall we accept the evidence of the experts who all stated that this is a typical urban redevelopment site and there is nothing particularly unusual about it. We find that the construction of the building (earthworks and contamination and geotechnical issues) can occur with no more than minor adverse effects, and that the effects of construction (traffic, noise, vibration and dust) can all be appropriately managed. 11.24 Infrastructure Servicing We received expert evidence that this site can be adequately serviced for stormwater, wastewater and water-supply. We accept that evidence.
45
Para 43 of Mr Hillmans evidence. 43
We understand that: In terms of stormwater, site imperviousness will be reduced by approximately 120m2, and therefore there will be no additional stormwater runoff generated by the proposed development. In addition, a stormwater reuse tank (approximately 25m3) will reduce the total volume of stormwater discharge from the site. In terms of wastewater, the site development will decrease the overall discharge due to the low occupancy of the site relative to the maximum potential occupancy levels. Proposed flows can be accommodated by the existing 150mm diameter public connection located in Dean Street and King Street. Water supply is sufficient for both potable requirements and for sprinkler systems and fire fighting.
11.25 Summer Hours The Applicant sought extended' hours during the summer months. We note that the reporting officer commented that the proposed 9pm closing time (summer) is longer than other Bunnings stores which do not have close proximity to residential areas. This matter was not responded to in the Applicants reply but we are satisfied that this extension is appropriate for this proposal having had regard to the matters of traffic, noise and amenity addressed above. For certainty, we have limited summer hours to between the 1st November and 31st March. 11.26 Positive Effects This proposal has a number of positive effects. The site is currently underutilised and in a relatively poor state. This proposal will redevelop the site and fully utilise it and make more efficient use of this physical resource. While we have not fully endorsed the urban design of the building, there are some positive urban design features and these have been fully set out earlier. As set out by Mr Boersen46, a Bunnings Warehouse of this size will employ some 120 full time equivalent staff. Moreover he stated that Bunnings know from other warehouses that staff generally live within 5kms of place of employment. We accept that this is a positive effect on not only employment, but likely local employment. We accept that the majority of submitters did not consider that these effects were positive, saying that the use of the site for a Bunnings store was inappropriate and inefficient given the importance of this site, that the building itself was too large and out of the scale with the surrounding area, and that the increase in employment would occur if this Bunning store was developed elsewhere. Nonetheless, for all of the reasons set out earlier we find these are positive effects from the proposal. 11.27 Section 104D of the RMA Having had regard to our Findings and Reasons above and subject to the conditions of consent offered by the Applicant (and those we have imposed), we find that the proposal satisfies at least one of the threshold tests of s104D47. The proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the Operative or Proposed
46 47
Para 73 of Mr Boersens evidence Noting that section 104D requires only one of the two tests to be met to satisfy that section of the Act. 44
District Plans nor those of the Regional Plan. The reasons for this are those set out above. As the application has satisfied one of the requirements of section 104D of the RMA, we are not required to make a finding or determination whether or not the adverse effects are minor or not. Having met the statutory test, we now determine, pursuant to section 104B of the RMA, whether it is appropriate to grant or refuse consent having had regard to section 104 of the Act and to Part 2 of the Act. Our Findings and Reasons set out above are relevant to this. 13. PART 2 CONSIDERATIONS Our consideration of Part 2 of the RMA is set out as follows. Section 6 of the RMA states a number of matters of national importance for which, if they apply, we must recognise and provide for them. We find that there are no matters of national importance that we need to address. Section 7 of the RMA contains a list of other matters that we must have particular regard to in determining an application. Those relevant are: (b) (c) (f) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.
We find, for the reasons already set out that the proposed use of the site is an efficient use of this physical resource, an underutilised site in the Mixed Use zone. The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and of the quality of the environment are the other relevant matters to which we must have particular regard. While the majority of the submitters consider that their amenity values and quality of the environment will not be maintained or enhanced by this proposal, these matters need to be assessed and determined in the context of what is contemplated or enabled by the statutory planning documents (in this case mainly the Operative District Plan). The Operative District Plan provides guidance on amenity values, and there is a clear statement in the Zone Strategy in section 8.6.10.2 which states: The Mixed Use zone is often in areas adjacent to residential or open space zones. The protection of amenity values between the Mixed Use zone and the residential and open space zone is achieved through application of development controls at this interface. As already set out the proposed building complies with the development controls including the height and height in relation to boundary controls. Moreover we are satisfied that appropriate regard has been had to amenity values and the quality of the environment in the context of: the design of the building, the internalisation of most activities, the reduction in the number of goods delivery vehicles (as offered by the Applicant), and all of the conditions of consent and the range of other
activities, with their consequential actual and potential effects) that are contemplated by the District Plan. We accept that the amenity values held by the residents of the residential area, and in particular Dean and King Streets, will be changed. However, this change is anticipated by the District Plan and it will not, in our view, be significant with the effects appropriately mitigated. Our finding is that overall the proposal satisfies these section 7 matters. Section 8 of the RMA requires the taking into account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. No section 7 matters were raised in relation to this section. Having regard to all of the above the proposal, subject to the conditions of consent, meets the purpose of the RMA being to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. 14. OVERALL REASONS
The overall reasons for granting consent are as follows: In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the proposal will have a range of adverse effects including visual and dominance effects, additional traffic, noise, vibration, and other construction-related effects and overall amenity effects. Due to the design and functioning of the building and site which represents a very different building typology than associated with a standard Bunnings warehouse, as well as conditions of consent which limit the scale of the activity and its effects (including limiting the days, hours and number of goods vehicle delivery as well as the trading hours, restricting vehicle entry and exits and noise controls), these effects have been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. Moreover the District Plan contemplates a level of adverse effects on the surrounding area and it permits a range of activities that could have similar adverse effects as does this proposal (e.g. warehousing and light manufacturing in terms of building bulk, traffic generation and noise). In relation to the Mixed Use zone provisions, the protection of amenity values at the interface between the Mixed Use zone and the residential zone is achieved through application of development controls and design criteria. With respect to the development controls, the proposed building complies with them, including the height and height in relation to boundary controls. The building also satisfies the design criteria set out in the District Plan such as the articulation of the building facades, stepping elevations and roofline, differing colours, textures and building materials, engagement with street edges by the placement of entries, landscape planting and a more restrained use of signage on Great North Road and none on the Dean Street frontage. In terms of 104(1)(b) of the RMA the proposal is largely consistent with, and not contrary to, the relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the statutory planning documents. The reasons for this are: The proposal is consistent with the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement in that the proposal assists with urban consolidation within the urban parts of the city and is not ad hoc development.
46
In terms of the District Plan this proposal, while not an activity specifically contemplated in the Mixed Use zone, consists of a warehouse, nursery/garden centre, retail of building/home improvement and other merchandise, cafe, offices, car parks and loading and unloading area - i.e. a mix of uses. It does not have a residential component, but the Mixed Use zone does not require a mix of activities on each site, but encourages a mix of activities across the zone. The proposal will contribute to a diverse and compatible mix of activities and will enable the development of this area as a vibrant urban area. It will also contribute to the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety. We find that overall the adverse amenity impacts on the adjacent Residential 1 zone have been avoided or mitigated. In terms of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, we have placed very little weight on its objectives and policies given this Plan was notified on the 30th September 2013. However, having considered those provisions they are more likely to support than oppose this development proposal. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water with respect to the regional consents (earthworks and sediment control, ground water and site contamination. In terms of the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil, the protection of the environment including human health will not be compromised by the disturbance of the potentially contaminated land. Appropriate conditions of consent have been imposed to ensure the required environmental standards are met.
Overall, the proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA. There are no matters of national importance or principles of the Treaty of Waitangi relevant to these applications (sections 6 and 8 respectively). Particular regard has been given to the relevant matters in section 7, including section 7(b) the efficient use and development of a physical resource, section 7(c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values, and section 7(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment and these have been appropriately addressed by the proposal and the conditions of consent. Having had regard to all of our findings and reasons above and the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA, we find that the proposal will promote the sustainable management of Aucklands natural and physical resources as is required by Section 5 Purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991.
15. CONDITIONS OF CONSENT
Pursuant to section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 we have imposed those conditions attached as Schedule 1 to this decision.
Greg Hill Chairperson Date:
15th November 2013

47
AUCKLAND
COUNCIL
SCHEDULE 1 RESOURCE CONSENT UNDER SECTION 88 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 BY BUNNINGS LIMITED TO ESTABLISH A BUNNINGS BUILDING IMPROVEMENT CENTRE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT 272-276, 300 & 302 GREAT NORTH ROAD, GREY LYNN, AUCKLAND 1021 CONDITIONS LAND USE CONSENT (R/LUC/2012/4247) Pursuant to Section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the consent consents described above shall, except as specified, be subject to the following conditions: General Fees and Charges (1) Pursuant to section 116 of the RMA, this consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as all charges pursuant to section 36 of the RMA, owing at the time the Councils decision is notified are paid in full to the Council.
Lapse Date (2) Pursuant to section 125 of the RMA the resource consents will lapse five years after the date of Councils decision unless the consent is given effect to or the Council decides to grant an extension to the period after which the consent lapses.
Monitoring Fee (3) The consent holder shall pay the Council a consent compliance monitoring deposit of $2,500 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent. (This charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent). The $2,500 (inclusive of GST) deposit charge shall be paid as part of the resource consent fee and the consent holder will be advised of any further monitoring charge or charges as they fall due. Such further charges are to be paid within one month of the date of invoice. Plans and Information (4) (a) Except as amended by the conditions that follow, the project shall be undertaken in accordance with the plans and information submitted with the application Application Reports The Assessment of Environmental Effects report titled, Proposed Bunnings Warehouse: 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey
272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn LUC No.: R/LUC/2012/4247 and 41146
48
Lynn, prepared by Kay Panther Knight of Barker & Associates Limited, dated 26 November 2012; The Transportation Assessment and attached appendices prepared by Darryl Hughes of Traffic Design Group Limited, dated November 2012; The Urban Design Assessment prepared by Rebecca Skidmore, dated November 2012; The Acoustic Assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited, reference: Rp002 2012392A, dated 26 November 2012; The Land Management Plan, prepared by MSC Consulting Group Limited, reference 33088, dated November 2012; The Engineering Infrastructure report prepared by MSC Consulting Limited, dated 15 November 2012; The Detailed Site Investigation Report prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited, reference 27688.001, dated November 2012; The Assessment of Groundwater and Drawdown Effects, prepared by Tonkin and Taylor Limited, reference 27688.001, dated 26 November 2012; and The Arboricultural Assessment prepared by Richard Peers of Peers Brown Miller Ltd, dated 18 November 2012.
Plans The plans titled, Bunnings Warehouse Grey Lynn, prepared by Hume Architects Limited, drawing numbers RC-01, and RC-05 to RC-15, revisions A, all dated stamped received by Council 28 November 2012; The plans titled, Bunnings Warehouse Grey Lynn, prepared by Hume Architects Limited, drawing numbers RC-02, RC-03 and RC-04, revisions B, all dated January 2013; The plan titled Truck Tracking Service Area/Dean Street, prepared by Traffic Design Group Limited, dated 28 February 2013; and The Landscaping Plans prepared by Natural Habitats Limited, drawing numbers LA01 to LA03, Except that: The approved plans shall be modified to show no change to the kerbline around the King Street / Great North Road intersection adjacent to the site.
49
Letters and Correspondence The correspondence and attached appendices from Darryl Hughes of Traffic Design Group Limited, dated 5 February 2013; The letter and attached appendices from Darryl Hughes of Traffic Design Group Limited, dated 26 February 2013; The Section 92 Response letter from Kay Panther Knight of Barker & Associates Limited, dated 18 January 2013 and attached specialist responses; and The second Section 92 Response letter from Matt Norwell of Barker & Associates Limited, dated 26 July 2013 and attached specialist responses and site plan,
all referenced by the Council as R/LUC/2012/4247 and 41146. (b) In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and supplementary documentation, the plans will prevail.
Pre-construction Construction and Traffic Management Plan (5) The Consent Holder shall provide a Construction and Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction. The CTMP shall include specific details relating to the avoidance, remedying and mitigation of adverse effects from any demolition, earthworks, construction and management of all works associated with the development as follows: (a) (b) (c) Details of the site manager, including their contact details (phone, facsimile, postal address); The proposed hours of work; Measures to be adopted to maintain the site in a tidy condition in terms of disposal / storage of rubbish, storage and the unloading of construction materials and similar construction activities; Measures for waste management which includes designated sites for refuse bins, and recycling bins for glass, plastic and cans storage and collection in accordance with the Councils waste reduction policy; Procedures for controlling sediment run-off, dust and the removal of soil, debris, demolition and construction materials (if any) from public roads or places adjacent to the work site; Proposed numbers and timing of truck movements throughout the day including the identification of heavy vehicle routes which avoid residential streets and in particular Dean Street; Proposed hours of work on the site (to correspond with any other condition in this consent relating to work hours);
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
50
(h)
Identification of ingress and egress locations to and from the site for construction vehicles, with all construction vehicles using Great North Road and not King and Dean Streets as far as is practicable; Measures to avoid the obstruction of the adjacent bus lane during clearway hours; Location of site hoardings; Location of site infrastructure including site offices, site amenities, workers conveniences, contractors yards site access, equipment unloading and storage areas, contractor car parking, and security; Procedures for ensuring that residents, road users and businesses in the immediate vicinity of construction areas are given prior notice of the commencement of construction activities and are informed about the expected duration and effects of the works; Measures to ensure the protection of street trees; and Procedures for responding to complaints about construction activities.
(i) (j) (k)
(l)
(m) (n) (6)
Prior to any works commencing on the site, the Consent Holder shall prepare a Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) to the satisfaction of the Council. The CNVMP shall cover the following matters as a minimum, in addition to the requirements of Annex E of NZS6803:1999:
(a) (b) (c)
Noise and vibration limits for the project; Hours of operation for construction activities; A list of plant that is likely to generate significant levels of noise and vibration, including predicted noise levels at 10m and the minimum separation distance required to achieve compliance with the limits in (a) above; Requirements for noise and commencement of demolition; vibration monitoring, including at the
(d)
(e)
Requirements for pre-condition surveys on potentially affected properties prior to, during and after completion of the works (potentially affected properties are within 2m minimum separation distances from (c) above as a general rule); Notification requirements for potentially affected parties, including a continually manned phone number for complaints; monitoring and complaints reporting requirements; Roles and responsibilities of key personnel, together with contact details; Construction noise and vibration mitigation options required to ensure compliance with the limits identified in (a) above;
(f)
(g) (h) (i)
51
(j)
Education of machinery operators on the effects of noise and vibration on neighbouring sites and ways to minimise it, including (for example) not dropping heavy items and careful use of machinery.
Urban Design Approval (7) Prior to the commencement of the construction the Consent Holder shall provide to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central the following details for review and approval by the Manager of the Councils Built Environment Unit: (a) (b) (c) Details of the mesh screen to be used around the nursery area on the corner of Great North Road and King Street; Details of the planted creeper and wire system on the King Street elevation and associated automatic watering system. All signage, noting that signage is limited to that shown on the plans identified in Condition 4(a). For the avoidance of doubt no signage is provided on the Dean Street faade.
Signage Approval (8) Prior to the commencement of the construction the Consent Holder shall provide to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central for review and approval the following A detailed Signage and Line Marking Plan (SLMP). This shall detail all internal and external signage and line marking associated with the management of vehicle, pedestrian and cycle movements. This Plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of the Bunnings store operation, and shall be implemented at the Consent Holders expense.
Cycle Parking (9)
Cycle parking (at a minimum of ten spaces for visitors and one space per 15 employees) shall be conveniently located in the vicinity of the Great North Road entrance to the development. The location of these spaces shall be indicated at the detailed design stage and shall take into account pedestrian movements to and from the development as well as along Great North Road. Appropriate shower and locker facilities shall be made available within the development for use by employees.
Street Trees (10) The Consent Holder shall ensure the protection of the street trees along the Great North Road footpath adjacent to the site and: (a) (b) Shall enter into a bond prior to the commencement of construction to ensure that no damage occurs during construction; Shall erect sturdy protective fencing around the trees during the whole of the construction period. These fences shall be placed so as to enclose all the open ground at the base of the trees.
52
(c)
During construction: (i) (ii) There shall be no deposition of materials, equipment, fuels and oils, or spoil within the areas enclosed by the protective fences. If any branches of any of the three trees conflict with any of the protective fence panels, the required pruning shall only be carried out by a Council-approved arborist engaged by the Consent Holder, or by the Councils contracting arborist in response to a Request for Service (RFP). Washings from the production of concrete shall not be flushed onto the open ground at the base of the trees.
(iii)
Auckland Transport Approvals (11) The following conditions relate to matters for which the Consent Holder will require the approval of Auckland Transport prior to the commencement of construction, and shall be implemented prior to operation, and shall be implemented at the Consent Holders expense. Note - These conditions were offered by the Consent Holder: (a) The Consent Holder shall install No Stopping At All Times lines for a length of 8 metres on the northern kerb line of Dean Street from the intersection with King Street. The flush median on Great North Road east of the Great North Road / King Street intersection shall be widened to at least 2 metres. Any changes to the street parking layout on adjacent roads shall be subject to the appropriate resolutions, submitted to Auckland Transport for approval, and implemented at the cost of the Consent Holder. All vehicle crossings shall be designed to ensure that the footpath is continuous across the crossing and at the same level as the footpath. The design of the vehicle crossings shall be submitted for approval by Auckland Transport at the detailed design stage by way of Engineering Plan Approvals. An Encroachment License shall be sought and obtained from Auckland Transport prior to the construction of the proposed canopies along Great North Road, and prior to the removal and replacement of existing street light standards.
(b) (c)
(d)
(e)
During Construction Construction Hours (12) All external construction works, including demolition and earthworks, and any noisy activities on or in the vicinity of the site shall be limited to the hours of 7:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:30am to 3:00pm Saturdays. For the avoidance of doubt works that may be undertaken without any reasonably discernible noise at the boundary of the property may be undertaken at any time. No noise generating construction work may be carried out on Sundays or public holidays. Such works includes noise generating activities associate with the preparation for the commencement of works including deliveries, loading and unloading of goods and materials and the transferring of tools etc.
53
Noise and Vibration (13) The noise from demolition works shall comply with the following noise limits as measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803:1999 Acoustics Construction Noise: (14) LAeq 80dB and LAmax 90dB
The noise from construction works shall comply with the following noise limits as measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803:1999 Acoustics Construction Noise: LAeq 70dB and LAmax 85dB
(15)
Vibration arising from demolition and construction activities shall comply with the guideline vibration limits set out in DIN4150-3:1999 Structural vibration - Effects of vibration on structures. Vibration measurements shall be undertaken in accordance with that Standard. If access to neighbouring buildings and structures for the monitoring of vibration is not permitted to the Consent Holder, the Consent Holder may elect the Council to undertake the monitoring on its behalf. The Consent Holder shall meet all costs of the monitoring.
Dust Management (16) Dust generation shall be minimised during dry and windy conditions by dampening down exposed soil and trafficked areas with water spray. Dust controls during the earthworks period shall comply with the Ministry for the Environment Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing the Environmental Effects of Dust Emissions, 2001.
Earthworks Management (17) The Consent Holder shall provide silt control measures on site as detailed in the MSC Limited report dated November 2012. This shall be implemented on site to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central. All earthworks shall be managed to ensure that they do not lead to any uncontrolled instability or collapse affecting either the site or adjacent properties or the adjacent road reserve. In the event that such collapse or instability does occur, it shall be immediately rectified. The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified engineer to supervise all excavations, foundation and retaining works. The supervising engineers contact details shall be provided in writing to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central at least two weeks prior to the commencement of works on site. The Consent Holder shall provide a schedule of engineering inspections, prepared by a suitably qualified engineer that will be undertaken during the excavations, foundation and retaining stage of the development. This shall be provided to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central, prior to the commencement of earthworks on site. Updates and modifications to the schedule shall be communicated in writing (email is acceptable) to the Councils Team Leader, Compliance and Monitoring - Central on a weekly basis during these stages of the development.
(18)
(19)
(20)
54
Contamination Management (21) The Consent Holder shall ensure that excavated soils are appropriately disposed of and shall provide evidence of the disposal method and location within one month of the completion of site preparation works to the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the contamination level of any imported soil is below the acceptance criteria for the protection of human health. If evidence of contamination (unusually coloured or odorous material) is discovered during any earthworks the Consent Holder shall immediately cease the works and notify the Councils Team Leader: Central Resource Consents Monitoring, and provide a Site Contamination Report to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central within seven working days of the discovery.
(22) (23)
Construction Traffic (24) Construction traffic shall as far as practicable use the Great North Road frontage and avoid using Dean Street for access to the site.
Post-construction / Pre-operation Inwards Goods Management Plan (25) An Inwards Goods Management Plan (IGMP) for the management of the movement of goods delivery vehicles shall be prepared and submitted to the Council for approval by the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central prior to the operation of the development. A goods delivery vehicle for the purposes of this condition (and condition 35-36) shall be no larger than an 8m Medium Rigid Truck. The IGMP shall confirm (with reference to Conditions 35 and 36): (a) (b) (c) (26) Restrictions on truck sizes to the store; Scheduled delivery times; and No service deliveries to the site shall occur on weekends or public holidays.
Should any complaints be received by Auckland Council or Auckland Transport relating to road user safety or the operational efficiency of Dean Street being compromised by delivery vehicles to the site, the Consent Holder may be required to amend the IGMP to address these complaints, subject to review by the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central. All associated costs would be borne by the Consent Holder.
Noise Mechanical Plant (27) The Consent Holder shall ensure that the design and installation any external mechanical plant and mechanical plant with external intakes or exhausts is overseen by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustician to ensure that the noise limits in Condition 37 are met when assessed cumulatively with all other sources from the site.
55
Noise Rapid Opening Door (28) The Consent Holder shall ensure that operation of the rapid opening door, as shown on the plans referenced in Condition 4(a), complies with a noise limit of LAmax55dB when measured at or within the boundary of any residential property. Confirmation of compliance with this condition shall be provided by a suitably qualified acoustician to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central prior to operation of the building improvements centre. The Consent Holder shall construct an acoustically effective fence or screen as described in section 6.0 of the Marshall Day report referenced in Condition 4(a) above prior to the opening of the building improvements centre. The fence or screen shall be constructed of a material with a surface mass of no less than 10kg/m2 and shall have no gaps along its length or at its base, and shall be maintained to be acoustically effective for the duration that this consent is given effect to.
(29)
Lighting Plan (30) Prior to the commencement of operations on the site, the Consent Holder shall provide a lighting plan to confirm the location of lighting fixtures on the exterior of the building and the lighting levels to be achieved at the boundary of the site, to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central.
Landscaping Implementation (31) As soon as practical and within the first planting season following completion of the works, the Consent Holder shall implement the landscaping plan referenced in Condition 4 above. The planting shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central.
Waste Management (32) The Consent Holder shall ensure that any refuse collection (other than Council collection services) occurs only between the hours of 7am and 5pm Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays) to ensure the noise effects of such collections do not affect the amenity of adjacent residential areas.
Vehicle Crossings (33) The Consent Holder shall ensure that, prior to operation, all redundant vehicle crossings are removed and reinstated as kerb and verge to Auckland Transport standards at the Consent Holders expense and to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring Central.
Post-construction / Operation Hours of Trade (34) The building improvements centre shall limit its hours of trade between the hours of 7:00am to 7:00pm Mondays to Fridays, and 8:00am to 6:00pm Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. During summer hours (1st November - 31st March), a closing time of 9:00pm may occur but not on Sundays or public holidays.
56
Hours of Operation of Inwards Goods and Receiving of Deliveries (35) Any deliveries to the inward goods receiving area via Dean Street shall be limited in accordance with the IGMP referenced at Condition 25 above. Deliveries shall be limited to between 7:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Friday. There shall be no more than 24 goods delivery vehicles (being a 5 to 9 tonne rated heavy commercial vehicle) to the site each day and further limited as follows: Monday - Friday 7:00am - 9:00am 9:00am - 3:00pm 3:00pm - 5:00pm Total Hours 2 6 2 Trucks per hour 1 4 1 Total 2 20 maximum 2 24
(36)
Except that on four days per calendar month this can be increased to 40 goods delivery vehicles (being a 5 to 9 tonne rated heavy commercial vehicle) to the site each day and a maximum of one goods delivery vehicle on the site in any 15 minute period. Note: A goods delivery vehicle for the purposes of this condition (and Condition 25) shall be no larger than an 8 metre Medium Rigid Truck. Operational Noise (37) The Consent Holder shall ensure that the operation of the building improvements centre is conducted within the following noise limits: (a) The activity shall comply with the following noise limits when measured at or within the boundary of any residential zoned site: (i) LA10 50dB between the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm Monday to Saturday and between 9:00am and 6:00pm on Sundays and public holidays; and LA10 40dB and LAmax 75dB at all other times.
(ii) (b)
The activity shall comply with the following noise limits when measured at or within the boundary of any Mixed Use zoned site: (i) (ii) LA10 60dB between the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm; and LA10 55dB and LAmax 75dB between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00pm.
(38) (39)
The Consent Holder shall ensure that the rapid opening door shall be used at all times when the inwards good receiving area is being used. The PA system within the outdoor nursery and bagged goods canopy area shall only operate: a) b) between the hours of 8.00am and 7.00pm (Monday to Friday). between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm (Saturday, Sunday and public holidays).
57
Section 128 Review Condition - Traffic (40) Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, and at a period no sooner than six months following the opening of the building improvements centre, and at annual intervals for a minimum of three years, the Consent Holder shall provide a traffic impact assessment (by a qualified traffic engineer) to assess the operation and safety of the right-hand turn from Great North Road to King Street. In undertaking this review, regard shall be given to: (a) (b) The amount of traffic undertaking the turning movement during peak times of traffic generation associated with the building improvement centre; The safety record for the section of Great North Road between Ariki Street and Bond Street, and with an emphasis on merge, manoeuvring and turning crashes; and The operation of the right turn into King Street with regard to the impact of any queuing on Great North Road on the operation and safety of throughtraffic on Great North Road.
(c)
(41)
Should the review identify a significant effect on traffic efficiency or safety from the above activities, the Council may require the Consent Holder, by notice in writing, to implement changes to the traffic management measures and/or the conditions of this consent. These changes may include (but are not limited to) a reconfiguration of the intersection (subject to approval from Auckland Transport), amendments to the Operational Management Plan or further restrictions on the service/loading activities along Dean Street.
Section 128 Review Condition - Noise (42) Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, and at a period no sooner than six months (but within 12 months) after the opening of the building improvements centre, the Consent Holder shall undertake monitoring of the operation of the rapid opening door and associated service/loading activities (at its own cost). In undertaking this review, regard shall be given to: (a) Whether the frequency of use is in accordance with the noise limits specified in Condition 37 above, particularly at residential boundaries along Dean Street; and Whether significant noise complaints from service/loading activities and customer pick-up activities and/or the rapid opening door operations have been received by the Council.
(b)
(43)
Should the review identify a significant effect on residential and aural amenity from the above activities, the Council may require the Consent Holder, by notice in writing, to implement changes to the operation of the inwards goods receiving area and/or the conditions of this consent. These changes may include (but are not limited to) a reduction in operating hours, redesign of the rapid opening door, amendments to the Operational Management Plan or further restrictions on the service/loading activities along Dean Street.
58
CONDITIONS REGIONAL CONSENT 41146 Definitions Council: Commencement of Dewatering: Means the Auckland Council Means excavation below the groundwater table and/or commencing taking any groundwater from the basement excavation after construction of the pile walls When all bulk excavation below groundwater level has been completed and all foundation/footing excavations within 10m of the retaining wall have been completed. Means when all the external base slab and walls are essentially watertight, the structures internal support mechanisms, including basement floors have been completed and effectively no further groundwater is being taken for the construction of the basement. Means when the Certificate of Completion is issued by the Council When damage is considered to affect serviceability or structural integrity. For example when doors and windows start sticking Includes aesthetic, serviceability and significant damage is the Differential and Total Settlement Limits set at a threshold less than the Alarm Level, at which the Consent Holder shall implement further investigations and analyses as described in the M&CP to determine the cause of settlement and the likelihood of further settlement. is the Differential and Total Settlement Limits set in Condition 37, or which has the potential to cause damage to buildings, structures and services, at which the Consent Holder shall immediately stop dewatering the site and cease any activity which has the potential to cause deformation to any building or structure or adopt the alternative contingency measures approved by the Manager. Means the Team Manager, Consents and Consent Central, Auckland Council, or nominated Council staff acting on the Managers behalf. Means Reduced Level Includes for example fibre optic cables, sanitary drainage, gas and water mains, power and telephone, road infrastructure assets such as footpaths, kerbs, catch-pits, pavements and street furniture.
Completion of Excavation
Completion of Dewatering:
Completion of Construction Significant damage Serviceability damage Damage Alert Level
Alarm Level
Manager:
RL: Services:
59
General Conditions (1) (2) This consent shall expire on 15th November 2048, unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or been cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA. That the taking and diversion of groundwater at 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, for dewatering purposes during construction and the diversion of groundwater in the long term, shall be in accordance with the plans and information submitted with the application and numbered 41146 by the Auckland Council, subject to such amendments as may be required by the following conditions of this consent. The servants or agents of the Council shall be permitted access to the relevant parts of the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements or taking of samples whilst adhering to the Consent Holders health and safety policy. The basement construction and related drainage works shall be designed, constructed and operated in a manner in which the risk of adverse effects (i.e. damage) due to lowering of the groundwater levels is less than minor. This condition shall apply to the following structures; adjacent neighbouring buildings, structures and services road infrastructure asset such as footpaths, kerbs, catch-pits, pavements and street furniture) surrounding the site. If any damage to buildings, structures and/or services is caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent as determined by survey, the Manager shall be notified as soon as practical, and provided with a methodology for repair of the damage that has been approved by an independent Chartered Professional Engineer. This engineer is to be approved by the Manager prior to the appointment. Any damage to buildings, structures and services, caused wholly or in part by the exercise of this consent shall be repaired by the Consent Holder as soon as practicable. Any such repairs shall be undertaken in accordance with an approved methodology pursuant to Condition (5) above. The bulk basement excavation is not to extend below 58.5m RL. Any permanent drainage installed behind retaining walls once tanking of the basement is complete, will not cause groundwater levels to significantly change from pre-construction groundwater levels. At least 10 working days prior to the Commencement of Dewatering, the Consent Holder shall advise the Manager, in writing, of the date of the proposed Commencement of Dewatering.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9)
Groundwater Monitoring (10) The two proposed monitoring bores located approximately adjacent to the north-west and north-east corners of the subject site, and shown on the annotated plan entitled Bunnings Ltd 276-302 Great North Road, Auckland Proposed Monitoring Locations, Figure 3, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor, dated Nov 2012 (annotated and attached to the further information response letter dated 5 February 2013), are to be drilled in the appropriate geological units to allow groundwater monitoring as specified in this consent. The bores are to be maintained to ensure ongoing monitoring data is obtainable. Should any of the monitoring bores be damaged and become in-operable, then the Manager is to be informed and a new monitoring bore, to the same depth, is to be drilled at a nearby location in consultation with the
60
Manager. The holes should be drilled at least two months prior to the Commencement of Dewatering. (11) The Manager shall be provided with as-built details of monitoring bores required under Condition 10 (location map, construction/geological log, RL at top of bore casing to an accuracy of 10mm), prior to the Commencement of Dewatering. The groundwater level, to an accuracy of 10mm, shall be measured in the monitoring bores, at a minimum of monthly intervals, from the construction of the boreholes until one month before the Commencement of Dewatering. The groundwater level shall be measured in the Monitoring bores, at a minimum of weekly intervals in the month prior to the Commencement of Dewatering, and weekly until Completion of Dewatering. At least three groundwater level measurements must be obtained prior to Commencement of Dewatering. If the water level readings vary significantly then further readings must be taken to obtain confidence (-/+ 200mm) in the groundwater level/trend prior to Commencement of Dewatering. The groundwater level shall be recorded in the Monitoring bores at a minimum of monthly intervals from the Completion of Dewatering until 3 months after Completion of Dewatering, subject to a consistent pattern of groundwater records having been obtained in this period in which no evidence of adverse effects is apparent. The monitoring period may be extended at the discretion of Auckland Council where the records are not consistent. The Consent Holder shall determine the groundwater Alert and Alarm Level, which cannot be lower than the drawdown predicted by the groundwater modelling presented in the AEE and subsequent revisions. The Alert and Alarm Level for each borehole are to be detailed in the Monitoring and Contingency Plan, required by Condition 18, for approval by the Manager. The consent holder shall use the groundwater level data provided in the AEE and from the groundwater levels measured as required in Conditions 12 and 13, to establish the seasonal low groundwater levels. All Alert and Alarm Levels are to be agreed with the Manager prior to the commencement of significant excavation and/or ground dewatering. The Provisional Alert Level and Alarm Levels are listed in Schedule A below for proposed monitoring bores. The Monitoring and Contingency Plan when lodged and approved may amend provisional Alert and Alarm levels in Schedule A.
Schedule A: Provisional Groundwater Alert and Alarm Levels Bore Name Bore ID Easting (mE) estimated Northing (mN) estimated Alert Level (metres below seasonal low level) 1.50 Alarm Level (metres below seasonal low level) 2.50
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16) (17)
Proposed Western Monitoring Bore BH1 Proposed Eastern Monitoring Bore BH2
TBA
1755545
5918645
TBA
1755650
5918690
1.50
2.50
61
Monitoring and Contingency Plan (18) Before Commencement of Dewatering, the consent holder shall prepare a Monitoring and Contingency Plan addressing groundwater, and settlement monitoring. (a) This Plan shall include the requirements of this resource consent including but not limited to: (i) An as built plan of all Deformation monitoring marks, inclinometer and location of monitoring bores based on approximate positions located on the plan entitled Bunnings Ltd 276-302 Great North Road, Auckland Proposed Monitoring Locations, 27688.001-Figure 3, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor, dated Nov 2012 (annotated and attached to the further information response letter dated 5 February 2013). Full details of the groundwater monitoring programme required by this consent. Full details of the ground surface, building and inclinometer deformation monitoring required by this consent. Proposed groundwater Alert and Alarm Levels, including methodology for their determination which should be based on data collected under Conditions12 and 13 and the groundwater model. Groundwater Alert and Alarm Levels should also take into account seasonal variability. All Alert and Alarm levels for each Ground and Building Deformation Mark and inclinometer as determined by conditions of consent or from ground settlement predictions presented in the consent application 41146 documentation. Details of the contingency measures to be implemented if Alert or Alarm Levels are exceeded.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(b)
The Monitoring and Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the Manager for approval prior to the Commencement of Dewatering. The Monitoring and Contingency Plan may be varied on request of the consent holder, subject to the written approval of the Manager, should information collected, by requirements of the conditions of this consent, indicate that the monitoring requirements of this consent may require modification.
(c)
Building Inspection (19) The Consent Holder shall consult with the owners of buildings listed in Schedule B and (subject to the owners approval on terms acceptable to the Consent Holder) undertake as a minimum an external survey, where listed in Schedule B, or as listed a detailed condition survey of these structures to confirm their existing condition and enable the sensitivity of the buildings to damage caused by groundwater and ground settlement changes to be accurately determined. The survey shall be conducted prior the Commencement of Dewatering. Major features of the buildings and site developments shall be recorded including location, type, construction, age and present condition, including defects. The survey shall include but not be limited to:
62
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Type of foundations Existing levels of aesthetic damage Existing levels of serviceability damage Existing level of structural damage Susceptibility of structure to further movement Photographic evidence of (b), (c) and (d)
Schedule B: Building Settlement Marks and Inspection Building 1 Address 308-310 Great North Road, Grey Lynn 4 Bond Street Detailed Inspection yes Settlement Pins (yes/No) yes Legal Title Pt Lot 16 DP17393 Lot 1 DP72604
yes
yes
(20)
The consent holder shall carry out a visual Inspection of the surrounding ground and neighbouring buildings (listed in Schedule B) to monitor any deterioration or cracking. This is to be carried out at least twice per week from the Commencement of Dewatering until completion of excavation and then at least weekly until Completion of Dewatering. A record is to be maintained of the time, date and any observations for each inspection. This record is to be maintained on site and submitted to the Manager in accordance with Condition 29. The Consent Holder shall (subject to the owner(s) approval on terms acceptable to the Consent Holder) ensure that within 6 months of Completion of Construction, a post-construction survey covering the matters identified in Condition 19 be completed of any building that had a pre-construction survey as identified in Condition 19. The survey report shall include a determination of the cause of damage identified (if any) since the pre-construction or previous survey and steps to repair it as provided for in Conditions 5 and 6. The requirements of this condition need not be fulfilled for any particular building where the Consent Holder can provided reasonable evidence to the Manager that the current owner of that building has agreed they do not require such a survey. The Consent Holder shall, without delay, at the reasonable request of the Manager (subject to the owners approval on terms acceptable to the Consent Holder) undertake an additional survey on any building (within the area defined by the groundwater monitoring, settlement monitoring and modelling undertaken pursuant to the conditions of this consent potentially affected by the excavation) for the purpose of checking for damage and for following up on a report of damage to that building. The requirement for any such survey will cease 6 months after the Completion of Construction unless the requirements of Condition 21 have not been met The Consent Holder shall ensure that the building survey reports (required by this consent) be undertaken by an independent Chartered Professional Engineer approved by the Manager and shall, within 15 working days of completion of the reports, provide the Council with a certificate from the engineer who has certified that the survey has been completed in a professional manner and is an accurate assessment of the condition of the buildings concerned.
(21)
(22)
(23)
63
(24)
The Consent Holder shall ensure that a copy of the pre, post-construction and any additional building survey reports (required by this consent) for each building be held on file by the independent Chartered Professional Engineer and forwarded to the Manager within 15 working days of completing the reports.
Ground and Building Deformation Monitoring (25) Ground and Building Deformation monitoring marks (or settlement monitoring pins) shall be established and maintained at the approximate locations shown on the annotated plan entitled Bunnings Ltd 276-302 Great North Road, Auckland Proposed Monitoring Locations, Figure 3, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor, dated Nov 2012 (annotated and attached to the further information response letter dated 5 February 2013), to detect any vertical and horizontal movements. The consent holder shall survey and record deformation at each Ground and Building Deformation Monitoring Mark at least twice prior to Commencement of Dewatering to establish a baseline elevation. All monitoring mark surveys shall be to a horizontal and vertical accuracy of at least 2 mm or as otherwise achieved by precise levelling. These records shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager prior to the Commencement of Dewatering. The consent holder shall survey and record the deformation at each Ground and Building Deformation Monitoring Mark at a minimum frequency of weekly intervals from the Commencement of Dewatering until the Completion of Dewatering. Survey measurements recorded shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager in accordance with Condition 29. The consent holder shall survey and record the deformation at each Ground Deformation Mark and Building Deformation Monitoring Mark, at least at monthly intervals from the Completion of Dewatering until the Completion of Construction. Survey measurements recorded shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager in accordance with Condition 29. All data collected as required by conditions of this consent are to be compiled, compared with the settlement and groundwater models (Tonkin & Taylor 25 October 2012 and subsequent reviews) and submitted to the Manager, at two monthly intervals from granting of consent, unless otherwise specified in this consent, setting out the previous results and providing an explanation for any trends.
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
Retaining Wall Deformation Monitoring (30) The detailed design of the basement wall and any retention along the western boundary of the subject site shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report entitled Assessment of Groundwater Drawdown and Effects, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor, dated 26 November 2012, and subsequent further information response letters dated 22 January 2013 and 5 February 2013. A minimum of three Wall Deformation pins shall be installed along the top of the boundary wall between 302 and 306-310 Great North Road. These monitoring pins will measure both vertical and lateral wall movement (combined settlement and displacement pins). The consent holder shall survey and record readings at each Retaining Wall Deformation Mark, at least twice prior to Commencement of Dewatering to establish
64
(31)
(32)
a baseline reading. All monitoring mark surveys shall be to a horizontal and vertical accuracy of at least 2 mm or as otherwise achieved by precise levelling. These records shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager prior to the Commencement of Dewatering. (33) The Consent Holder shall survey and record, as required in Condition 32, the readings of each Retaining Wall Deformation Mark, at an average of each 2 metres depth of excavation, and at a minimum frequency of weekly intervals from the Commencement of Dewatering for a period of one month after the Completion of Excavation, thence fortnightly until the Completion of Dewatering. The consent holder may request the Managers approval for this monitoring to be extended to monthly periods, subject to the level of deformation that has occurred on site. Survey measurements recorded shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager in accordance with Condition 29. A single inclinometer shall be installed either within a retaining pile or immediately behind one and extending to the base of the retaining pile adjacent to the western boundary. The inclinometer is to be located approximately as shown on the annotated plan entitled Bunnings Ltd 276-302 Great North Road, Auckland Proposed Monitoring Locations, Figure 3, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor, dated Nov 2012 (annotated and attached to the further information response letter dated 5 February 2013). Measurement accuracy shall be to best practice. The Consent Holder shall survey and record the readings of the inclinometer, at an average of each 2 metres depth of excavation, and at a minimum frequency of fortnightly intervals from the Commencement of Dewatering for a period of one month after the Completion of Excavation, thence monthly until the Completion of Dewatering. Survey measurements recorded shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager in accordance with Condition 29.
(34)
(35)
Alert and Alarm Level Notification (36) The Manager shall be notified within 24 hours should any of the following monitoring results eventuate: (a) (b) Total ground settlement exceeds 10mm (the Total Ground Settlement Alert Level); or Firstly if groundwater levels drop below the Alert Level in monitoring bores as defined in Condition 16 and 19, and secondly if groundwater levels drop below the Alarm levels, due to the operation of dewatering the basement construction at 272-276, 300 & 302 Great North Road; or Total Building Settlement exceeds 5mm (Building Settlement Alert Level); or The differential ground settlement between any Ground Settlement Marks or Building Monitoring Mark exceeds 1:700 (The Differential Ground Settlement Alert Level); or The differential settlement between any two building monitoring Marks exceed 1:1000 (The Differential Building Settlement Alert Level); or Inclinometer Deformation exceeds 10mm (The Inclinometer Deformation Alert level).
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
65
(37)
The activity shall not cause: (a) Greater (steeper) than 1:500 differential settlement (the Differential Ground Settlement Alarm Level) between any two Ground Settlement Monitoring Mark or any Building Settlement Marks required under this consent; Greater than 15 mm total settlement (the Total Ground Settlement Alarm Level) at the Ground Settlement Monitoring Marks; Greater (steeper) than 1:700 differential settlement (the Differential Building Settlement Alarm Level) between any two adjacent Building settlement monitoring marks required under this consent; Greater than 10 mm total settlement (the Total Building Settlement Alarm Level) at any Building Settlement Monitoring Mark required under this consent; or Greater than 15mm total deflection (the Inclinometer Deformation Alarm Level) at any inclinometer required under this consent
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Trigger Levels, Contingency and Reporting (38) The Consent Holder shall provide an Alert Level and Alarm Level for each Ground and Building Deformation mark, inclinometer and for each borehole. Responses to exceedance of these limits are to be detailed in the Monitoring and Contingency Plan, required by Condition 18, for approval by the Manager. In the event of any Alert Level exceedance of Ground and Building Deformation monitoring marks or inclinometer deformation and/or Alarm Level exceedance of groundwater levels in the monitoring bores, associated with construction at 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, then the Consent Holder must: (a) Re-measure all Deformation marks within 50 metres of the affected monitoring mark(s) to confirm the extent of deformation and exceedance of the Alert Trigger. Submit a written report by the independent Chartered Professional Engineer to the Manager for approval, within one week of trigger Level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data, including wall deflection monitoring, relating to the exceedance of any of the Trigger levels and any recommendations for remedial actions which may include additional monitoring. Once approved, the recommendations shall be implemented.
(39)
(b)
(c) Note:
The Manager may require initiation of the response detailed in Condition 40 below before receiving the written report requested in this condition. (40) In the event of any Alarm Trigger exceedance of Ground deformation monitoring marks or inclinometer deformation associated with construction at 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, then the Consent Holder must stop dewatering the site or any other construction activity which has the potential to cause deformation to minimise any further exceedance of triggers, investigate the causes
66
and allow for any mitigation to be instigated. Dewatering and/or construction may be resumed when the Manager provides written notice to the Consent Holder that the Manager is satisfied that damage to buildings, structures and services is unlikely, with or without any additional mitigation measure or that the Manager is satisfied that owners of potentially affected buildings, structures and services have given written approval for dewatering and/or construction to continue. (41) The consent holder, shall within 10 working days of completion of construction, advise the Manager in writing, of the date of completion.
Review Conditions (42) The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Manager pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, by the giving of notice pursuant to section 129, within sixth months after Commencement of Dewatering and subsequently at intervals of not less than one year thereafter in order: (a) to vary the quantities, monitoring and reporting requirements, and performance standards in order to take account of information, including the results of previous monitoring and changed environmental knowledge, on:(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (b) ground conditions aquifer parameters groundwater levels; and ground surface deformation
to deal with any adverse effect on the environment arising or potentially arising from the exercise of this consent, and in particular effects on buildings, structures and services.
ADVICE NOTES FOR LAND USE CONSENT (R/LUC/2012/4247) AND REGIONAL CONSENT 41146 1. Subject to section 198 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Councils Policy on Development Contributions, a development contribution may be payable on this consent. A notice of assessment will be sent out which outlines the quantum of the contribution payable for this consent. Please note that with respect to this development, building consents will not be released, code of compliance certificates will not be issued and section 224(c) certificates for subdivision will not be issued until the development contribution is paid. The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Historic Places Trust Act 1993. This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the approval of this resource consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously issued building consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be required. If not all resource consents have been applied for and the Council has not required these consents be sought as part of the consent applications for this proposal, it remains the responsibility of the consent holder to
2.
67
obtain any and all necessary resource consents required under the relevant requirements of the RMA. 3. The granting of this resource consent does not in any way allow the applicant to enter and construct drainage within neighbouring properties, without first obtaining the agreement of all owners and occupiers of said land to undertake the proposed works. Any negotiation or agreement is the full responsibility of the applicant, and is a private agreement that does not involve the Council. Should any disputes arise between the private parties, these are civil matters, which can be taken to independent mediation or disputes tribunal for resolution. It is recommended that the private agreement be legally documented to avoid disputes arising. To obtain sign-off for the resource consent, the services described by the conditions above are required to be in place to the satisfaction of the Council. Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by the Council in accordance with section 35(d) of the RMA. This will typically include site visits to verify compliance (or non compliance) and documentation (site notes and photographs) of the activity established under the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will the Council issue a letter on request of the Consent Holder. Changes to the road reserve including will require to be approved by Auckland Transport. Removal of parking and installation of parking restrictions as a result of the development will require Traffic Control Committee resolutions prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer. These will need to be passed so that changes to the road reserve can be legally enforced. This may require public consultation to be undertaken in accordance with Auckland Transports standard procedures (see also Condition 11 of the land use consent). Any road, airspace or subsoil encroachment by the proposed development (e.g. the proposed canopies on Great North Road frontage) will require the appropriate Encroachment License / Lease to be sought from Auckland Transport (see also Condition 11 of the land use consent). Construction Traffic Management Plans need to be submitted to Auckland Transport for approval via a Corridor Access Request.
4.
5.
6.
7.
68

Bunnings Consent Application Decision

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bunnings Consent Application Decision

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AUCKLAND

APPEARANCES: For the applicant:

As described in the memorandum by Styles Group Limited dated 11 March 2013. 6

Para 26 of Mr Kirkpatricks closing submissions. Paras 4, 5 and 6 of Mr Webbs legal submissions. 10

Para 10.4 of Mr Williams evidence Para 63 of Mr Klimenkos evidence 13

a plan or proposed plan: and

Para 3 of Mr Lees evidence Para 15 of Mr Chambers evidence 16

Para 10 of Mr Webbs legal submissions. Para 3.8 of Mr Putts evidence. 20

Approximately ten years ago. 21

Para 4.3 of Ms Skidmores evidence. ibid 23

Para 6.1 of Ms Skidmores evidence Para 1A ii of Mr Rennies evidence. 24

Mr Blunts officer comments under the heading The Bunnings offer. 25

Pg 3 Amenity - of Ms Aggreys submission. 28

Para 5 of Mr McKenzies evidence. Para 63 of Mr McKenzies evidence. 30

Para 11 of Mr Dayarams evidence Ibid 34

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan.

Para 43 of Mr Hillmans evidence. 43

15. CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

Greg Hill Chairperson Date:

15th November 2013

(i) (j) (k)

(m) (n) (6)

(g) (h) (i)

Cycle Parking (9)

Completion of Construction Significant damage Serviceability damage Damage Alert Level

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi