Bunnings Consent Application Decision

8/13/2019 Bunnings Consent Application Decision

1/68

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)

1

A U C K L A N D C O U N C I L

Decision follow ing the hearing of an application for resource consent

SUBJECT: Application for resource consent under section 88 of the ResourceManagement Act 1991 by BunningsLimitedto establish a BunningsBuilding Improvement Centre and associated works and a diversion of

groundwater at 272-276, 300 & 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn,Auck land 1021.

The hearing was held on 7th, 8th, 9thand 10thOctober 2013

CONSENT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104, 104B AND 104D AND PART 2OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, IS GRANTED.

THE FULL DECISION IS SET OUT BELOW

Hearing Panel: The Applications were heard by HearingsCommissioners:Mr Greg Hill ChairmanMr Trevor MackieMs Janine BellMr Ken Baguley (Orakei Local Board Member)

Council Officers: Mr Graeme Michie Senior Resource ConsentProject Manager

Mr Richard Blakey Reporting OfficerMr Karl Hancock Traffic EngineerMr Gerald Blunt Urban DesignerMr Jon Styles Noise ConsultantMr Nick Hazard Environmental Health OfficerMr Richard Reid Democracy Advisor - Hearings

APPEARANCES: Mr David Kirkpatrick Legal CounselFor the applicant: Mr David Boersen Applicant Bunnings Property and Store

Development ManagerMr Christopher Hume ArchitectMs Rebecca Skidmore Urban DesignerMr Paul Culley Civil EngineerMr Chris Hillman Environmental Engineer (Groundwater)Mr Chris Freer Geotechnical EngineerMr Don McKenzie Traffic Engineer

Mr Curt Robinson AcousticianMr Mathew Norwell Planner

APPEARANCES: **Note see the statement below with respect to the submittersSubmitters: Mr Lee Whiley

Mr Alan Webb Legal Counsel for Arch Hill Residents (Arch HillResidents 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)


2/68



2

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 bythe submitters)

St James Kindergarten Committee: Mr Michael Berin Ms Jeanette Pinker Ms Evette Gourdie; and Ms Elena Smith.

Ms Nisha EvansKindercare:

Mr Malcolm Maclean Legal Counsel Mr Nigel Williams Traffic Engineer Mr John Klimeko Engineer

Mr Keith Hopkins and Ms Fou Brown Hopkins statement readby 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 thosepersons 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 bythe by the Arch Hill Residents Society. We understand this Society was formed inrelation the proposal by Bunnings to develop this site.

We note that the Arch Hill Residents Society is not a submitter to the applications, but thata number of its members are. Mr Whiley, Ms Aggrey, Ms Lyons and Ms Sutherland aremembers of the Society and appeared and gave evidence.

Mr Webb Legal Counsel for the Arch Hill Residents Society, stated that his submissionswere filed on behalf of that Society. As explained and agreed at the hearing, thesesubmitters were giving evidence in their own right and some had called the others aswitnesses to support their submissions (but collectively referred to themselves as the ArchHill Residents Society). We have referred to this group of submitters as the Arch HillResidents.

1. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY DETAILS

Application Numbers: R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and

41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit)

Site Address: 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn,Auckland 1021

Appl icant 's Name: Bunnings Limited

Hearing Dates: 7th, 8th, 9thand 10thOctober 2013

Hearing Panels SiteVisit:

Individually prior to the hearing and then together as aPanel on the 10thOctober 2013

Hearing Closed: 21stOctober 2013


3/68



3

2. DECISIONS

2.1 Late Submission

Pursuant to section 37 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the latesubmission by Alison Rumpff is ACCEPTED. The submission was received one

day later than the submission deadline, did not cause any delay in processing theapplications and no objection to accepting the submission was raised by theApplicant.

2.2 Substantive Decision

Pursuant to sections 104, 104B and 104D and Part 2 of the ResourceManagement Act 1991 (RMA), consent is GRANTEDto the non-complying activityapplication by Bunnings Limited to establish and operate a Bunnings BuildingImprovement Centre, associated works and a diversion of ground water at 272-276, 300 and 302 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021, being Lot 1 DP54261 (CT NA19C/991), Lot 1 DP 100596 (CT NA55C/354), Lot 1 DP 64875 (CTNA21C/1275), and Leasehold CT 423055, and being referenced as

R/LUC/2012/4247 (Land Use) and 41146 (Water Take and Diversion Permit).

3. THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The Proposal

Bunnings seek resource consent for the construction and operation of a BunningsWarehouse - Building Improvement Centre, with associated parking, loading,servicing and landscaping. The proposed development will include the followingelements:

Display, storage and sale of goods such as building and plumbingmaterials, timber and joinery, with a timber trade sales area, a cafe and anoutdoor garden nursery and ancillary office areas, with a total gross floorarea (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 willbe provided to the site via King Street, and a left-turn access on GreatNorth Road, while exits are available from King Street (2 exits) and GreatNorth Road (left turn only); and

A loading delivery and departure access is provided on Dean Street (truckdeliveries only).

It is proposed that the activity will operate seven days per week between the hoursof 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, and 8am to 6pm Saturdays, Sundays and publicholidays. Summer hours may be extended to 9pm Monday Saturday.

The proposal involves the removal of all of the existing buildings on the site. Asignificant amount of excavation during the construction stage is required toprovide a level platform for the basement level parking. This will occur over anarea of 6,650m2, and involve a total of 22,200m3of cut.


4/68



4

The proposal was fully set out in the application documents and in evidence beforethe hearings panel.

4. SITE ZONING AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

4.1 Site Zoning

The land is zoned Mixed Use in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland CityIsthmus Section 1999) (District Plan). It is also zoned Mixed Use under theProposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)1.

The PAUP was notified on 30th September 2013. Consideration needs to be givento the relevant objectives, policies and rules of it. We were advised by the CouncilOfficers, Legal Counsel for the Applicant and submitters and other expert plannersthat we should place little or no weight on the Unitary Plan (in relation to the landuse issues) given it had only recently been notified. We agree with this, butaddress it later in this decision. The rules in relation to 41146 (Water Take andDiversion 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 itssurrounds. The Mixed Use zoning extends along both sides of Great North Roadin a westerly and easterly direction with Residential 1 zoned land adjoining it.

4.2 Site Description and Location

The site is located on the south-western side of the intersection of Great NorthRoad and King Street, in Grey Lynn. Dean Street forms the sites southernboundary. The western boundary of the site is defined by the site described as308-310 Great North Road and which extends from Great North Road to 4 BondStreet. It has a total area of 7,207m2.

The site contains a series of low-rise buildings of an industrial character andassociated carparking. Due to the slope of the site, buildings along Great North

1The PAUP was notified on the 30thSeptember 2013, before the hearing of these applications commenced.

The Site


5/68



5

Road are single level and two-level where they front Dean Street. These buildingswere recently occupied by a clothing manufacturer, a vehicle dealership, and apaint supply trade outlet.

A number of parking spaces are accessed directly from Great North Road (38spaces) via two vehicle crossings, while other parking and servicing areas areavailable from Dean Street (13 spaces), which are accessed directly from thecarriageway. 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 andresidential.

Residential development adjoins the Mixed Use zone to the south. The residentialzoning of the land to the south (which adjoins the Bunnings site) is zonedResidential 1 a zone which reflects the heritage character of this area and ispredominately villas and cottages. The residential properties on the southern sideof Dean Street are located either at grade or below the Dean Street carriagewaydue to the slope of the land. A childcare centre (Kindercare) is located on thecorner 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 eachdirection, and a median lane that extends to the east and terminates a shortdistance to the west. Kerb-side parking is available outside of clearway times,while some No Stopping At All Times lines affect the availability of parkingadjacent to the intersection of Great North Road with King Street. The southernwest-bound lane of Great North Road functions as a bus lane during afternoonpeak hours, and an east-bound bus lane performs the same function in themorning peak on the northern side. King Street and Dean Street are single lanelocal roads and provide for unrestricted kerbside parking (approximately 18 spacesin Dean Street, and 17 spaces in the northern section of King Street).

5. NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

5.1 Limited Notification

The application was notified on a limited basis in accordance with a decision ofthe Councils Duty Commissioner dated 22 March 2013 pursuant to section 95B ofthe RMA. The decision concluded that the proposal required limited notificationbecause written approval has not been obtained from the owners/occupiers ofthose properties listed in that decision.

5.2 Submissions Received

Fifty one submissions were received. Fifty of those were in opposition to theapplications, with one being neutral. The submissions and a summary of themwere 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.


6/68



6

6.1 Operative District PlanResource consent is required under the following provisions of the District Plan:

The proposed Building Improvement Centre is not provided for in theactivity table under Rule 8.7.7 for the Mixed Use zone and thereforerequires consent as a non-complying activity. While the overall activitystatus 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 Usezone. Pursuant to Rule 8.7.7, this requires consent as a restrictedcontrolled activity.

The proposal involves the development of a new building located within30m of the Residential 1 zone. Pursuant to Rule 8.7.7 any permitted orcontrolled 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 restricteddiscretionary 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 arestricted 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 controlledactivity.

The proposal requires excavations. Pursuant to Rule 8.7.7, consent isrequired 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 204spaces. Pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1, this requires consent as a discretionary

activity.

The proposed vehicle crossing to Great North Road will exceed themaximum 6 metre width under Rule 12.8.2.2 by 0.3 metres. Pursuant toRule 12.9.1.1 this requires consent as a restricted discretionary activity.

The proposed vehicle crossings on Great North Road and King Street willbe located within a Defined Road Boundary, as defined under Rule12.8.2.6. Pursuant to Rule 12.9.1.1, any activity with access within aDefined Road Boundary requires consent as a restricted discretionaryactivity.

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 applicablemaximum construction noise limit of LAeq 70dB specified under Rule 4A.1Dof the District Plan. Pursuant to Rule 4A.1(ii) this is a non-complyingactivity.

2As described in the memorandum by Styles Group Limited dated 11 March 2013.


7/68



7

6.2 Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air Land & Water (RP:ALW)

The proposal requires consent under the RP:ALW as it involves the diversion ofgroundwater in a manner that may not be considered in accordance with theconditions for a permitted activity under Rule 6.5.76. Pursuant to Rule 6.5.77consent 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 istherefore required pursuant to Regulation 8(3) of the National EnvironmentalStandard for Contaminated Soils (NES) for disturbance of land that may haveaccommodated an activity or industry described in the Hazardous Activities andIndustries List.

6.4 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)

The PAUP was publicly notified on the 30thSeptember 2013, after this applicationhad been lodged, but before this decision was made. Pursuant to section 88A(1A)of the RMA, the application continues to be processed, considered, and decidedas 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 immediateeffect. 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 tradesuppliers3as an activity is classified as a discretionary activity).

The regional rules have immediate legal effect. We were advised by the reportingofficer that under the PAUP the ground water diversion proposed by thisapplication 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 advicegiven to us by the Applicant, submitters and the council officers is that little or noweight should be given to them given the very recent notification of the PAUP. Weagree 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 outindependently of each other, we have bundled the applications. This wassupported by the Applicant.

Overall, the application in terms of the Operative District and Regional Plan is anon-complying activity. We record that there was no disagreement among the

parties over the activity status.

3We were advised by Council Officers that this definition would apply to a Bunnings Building ImprovementCentre.


8/68



8

7. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONSIDERED NONCOMPLYING ACTIVITY

In making our decision we have had regard to the relevant statutory provisionsincluding 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 testsrelevant to this application. Accordingly the applications are subject to section104D of the Resource Management Act 1991. This is commonly referred to as thegateway tests. Section 104D requires an application to pass at least one of thetwo tests, and if it fails both then the application must be refused consent. If theapplication can satisfy section 104D then a determination is required under section104B whether to grant or refuse consent.

The section 104D tests require that either the adverse effects of the application onthe environment must be minor when taking into account any mitigation proposed orreasonably able to be imposed (section 104D(1)(a)), or the application must not becontrary 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 thelikely future environment should consent be granted and the effects that theproposal may have. It is also necessary to review the relevant objectives andpolicies in the Regional and District Plans to determine if the application isconsistent with or contrary to them. In doing so we have considered all of therelevant matters set out in section 104 Consideration of Applications and thenreturned to the section 104D tests to determine if one or both have been met. Weset 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. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE HEARD

9.1 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 supportinginformation contained within it.


9/68



9

9.2 At the hearing

Legal Submissions and evidence was provided at the hearing for and on behalf ofthe Applicant and Submitters. We set out a very brief summary of the evidencehere 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 thatthe application satisfied the section 104D non-complying activity - tests. Healso submitted that in terms of broad discretionary judgments that need to bemade 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. Healso addressed in some detail the proposal and how Bunnings had changed itsstandard development typology to fit with this proposed site, its context and torespond to the outcome of consultation with the neighbours.

Mr Hume Architect, addressed the building design process and resolutionregarding designing a building for this site as opposed to the standard Bunningstypology. He also addressed the materials and colours to be used and how thedesign had addressed Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)principles.

Ms Skidmore Urban Designer, provided a summary of the site context analysisas part of her urban design assessment. She also commented on the sitessuitability to accommodate the proposed activity and suitability of the buildingsscale, form and layout in relation to the surrounding context. Ms Skidmore alsoaddressed the effects on streetscape character, pedestrian amenity and theamenity effects on adjoining properties in Dean Street.

Mr McKenzie Traffic Engineer, addressed the level of traffic likely to begenerated as a result of the proposal and how the resulting traffic (delivery andcustomer and staff vehicles) could be accommodated on the surrounding roadnetwork and the adequacy and functioning of the proposed access and egresspoints. He also addressed the anticipated parking and loading requirements.

Mr Robinson Acoustician, set out the existing ambient acoustic environment andthe relevant noise provisions in the District Plan. He then addressed the predictedsound emissions from the proposed activity, especially at the residential interface,in terms of demolition/construction and the operation of the centre. Mr Robinsonthen set out the proposed noise management and mitigation measures. Hisevidence was that the proposal would comply with the District Plan noiseprovisions.

Messrs Culley, Hillman and Freer addressed the more technical aspects of theproposal including issues of earthworks, site contamination, ground water drawdown, geotechnical issues and infrastructure servicing. The evidence given wasthat all of these matters could be satisfactorily addressed subject to the proposedconditions of consent.

Mr Norwell Planner, provided a planning assessment of the proposal andaddressed 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


10/68



10

the relevant plans, it satisfied the non-complying tests; that the proposal was notcontrary to the objectives and policies and would have no more than minoradverse effects. He considered that in terms of section 104 and Part 2 of theRMA the proposal was an appropriate one on this site, that the adverse effectshad been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated, and there that werepositive effects from the development. Overall, taking all relevant matters intoaccount, he opined that the proposal met the purpose of the RMA.

Mr Kirkpatrick provided verbal and written closing legal submissions addressingthe following:

Mixed Use zoning objectives and policies

Amenity Values

Traffic:

o Network capacity

o Loading

o 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 followingto further reduce the issues around trucks at morning and afternoon peaks whileretaining sufficient provision for deliveries to the store:4

Monday - Friday Hours Trucks per hour Total

7:00am - 9:00am 2 1 2

9:00am - 3:00pm 6 4 20 maximum

3:00pm - 5:00pm 2 1 2

Total 24

Submitters

Arch Hill Residents were represented by Mr Webb - legal counsel. He providedlegal submissions. He submitted that while the submitters were not opposed tochange, it was the scale of the proposed activity, and the consequential effectsarising from it that was of concern.

He stated that the submitters .fully appreciate that they live in, and havepurchased properties in a residential zone adjacent to a mixed use zone. Theirexpectations 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 Sitecould be redeveloped at any stage. They would welcome a mix of activities thatserviced and/or enhanced the village community they have established. However,they did not have any expectation that their lifestyles would be subjected to suchan intense commercial activity and on such a massive scale operating right ontheir front door step.5

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


11/68



11

Mr Webb set out that there need not be a mixed use of this particular site and thatthe District Plan does not require this6. However he went on to state that theDistrict Plan does not anticipate the intensification of the site as is proposed byBunnings7. He set out that the evidence he would call, including expert planningand traffic evidence, would demonstrate that the proposal could not pass either ofthe 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 othermiscellaneous effects included Plan integrity, amenity and the quality of theenvironment8. Mr Putt, his planning witness, and the other lay witnesses hewould 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 JAggrey, Mr Hopkins, Ms Brown-Hopkins, Mr Batten, Mr Rennie, Ms Evans, MsPillay, Mr Lee and Mr Chambers all raised community as well as individualconcerns about the proposal as it would affect the local community and (whererelevant) 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 asit would affect the surrounding residential properties, most of which are zonedResidential 1 in the District Plan. A number of the submitters set out that theywere aware of the Mixed Use zone, but expected or would prefer apartments,small scale retailing activities, other smaller commercial and start up typeactivities, and considered that it was these types of activities were envisaged inthe 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 MrLee9, Mr Chambers10and Mr Rennie (an Architect) commented about theimportance of this road as a strategic transport corridor and how GreatNorth Road requires a high quality/designed building.

The loss or destruction of amenity values to individual properties and thesurrounding (residential) community due to the scale of the activity in termsof:

o The scale and design of the building, particularly its Dean Streetfrontage;

o Intensity of the activity;

o The amount of traffic and in particular the delivery vehicles;

6Para 10 of Mr Webbs legal submissions7ibid8Para 56 of Mr Webbs legal submissions9Mr Lee, is an Auckland Councillor, but was giving evidence as a lay witness for the Arch Hill Resident

submitters.10Mr 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 LocalBoard to speak and present its position on the application.


12/68



12

o The impact on on-site parking; and

o Safety, noise and vehicle emissions.

The poor interface of the proposed development with the provisions of theResidential 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 effectswere more than minor some considering them to be significantparticularly with respect to residential amenity values and the quality of theenvironment.

The Submitters (Arch Hill Residents) called the following experts:

Mr Dayaram Traffic Engineer addressed the impact of the proposal on the localroading network. In doing so he set out the existing conditions of the trafficsituation of the immediate area and also considered how other Bunnings storesoperated from a traffic flow and parking perspective. It was his opinion thathaving reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and the survey worksundertaken11, that the vehicle trip generation rates had been significantly under-

estimated.

In considering the likely vehicle (customer) traffic generation, the truck volumes,the King Street/Great North Road intersection as well as pedestrian safety, loadingand on street parking, it was Mr Dayarams opinion that the traffic effects wouldresult in adverse traffic effects on the surrounding area. He considered that theseadverse effects were more than minor and the application should therefore bedeclined on traffic grounds12.

Mr Putt Town Planner, provided planning evidence and had assessed theproposal in relation to the statutory planning documents. His assessment andultimate conclusions were different to Mr Norwell and Mr Blakey (the Councilsreporting 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 whenconsidered in terms of Part 213. He further stated The proposal does not create asustainable management outcome because it results in the inappropriate use ofthe important physical resource presented by the subject site14.

In summary, Mr Putt came to the above conclusion as the application, in hisopinion, does not respond appropriately to the clear purposeof the District Plan atthis sensitive location15. He considered the interface of the Mixed Use zone andthe Residential 1 zone requires a high level of design to reflect the intent ofpurpose of the Mixed Use Zone to maintain and enhance as it should theamenities of the adjoining Residential 1 zone16. He further stated that TheBunnings proposal cannot reflect those intentions and is fundamentally contrary tothem17.

St James Kindergarten, located at 25 Home Street was concerned about theimpact of the proposal on: safety issues in particular on the children who, walk,

11Mr Dayaram stated in evidence (para 17) that under his direction the Arch Hill Residents had undertaken anumber of surveys and traffic counts.12Para 106 of Mr Dayarams evidence.13Para 6.9 of Mr Putts evidence.14ibid15Para 1.8 of Mr Putts evidence.16Ibid17Ibid


13/68



13

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, whichthe kindergarten is a part of. St James Kindergarten sought that the application bedeclined.

Kindercare, located at 7 King St (on the corner of King and Dean Street) wasrepresented 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 ofthe section 104D tests, and if it could then consent should still be declined due tothe significance of the adverse effects. The adverse effects were, in hissubmission: ground stability and the retaining wall on the Dean Street frontage,traffic and parking (including construction traffic) and vehicle exhaust fumes andchild health. He called two expert witnesses Mr Williams (Traffic) and MrKlimenko (Engineer).

Mr Williams (traffic) considered that there were a number of traffic related effectsthat adversely impacted on the safety and wellbeing or the users of the Kindercaresite and of other road users. He considered that there were significantuncertainties with regards to parking issues and that the trip generation effects ofthe 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 notbe contemplated or allowed on a public road18. Overall he concluded that thetraffic related aspects of the proposal did not present a comprehensive or viablesolution to the traffic needs of the proposed activity.

Mr Klimenko (Engineer) considered the impact of increased traffic from theproposed development, and in particular heavy vehicles, on the stability andfunctioning 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 whenit may have been built. It was his opinion that the existing retaining wall would notbe able to accommodate the repeated surcharge loads from commercial vehiclemovements directly attributable to the operation of the applicant19. He stated thathe 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 anacceptable level if a series of bollards were installed along the existing curb onDean Street.

10. THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION

The entire proposal was in contention with the submitters seeking that theproposal be refused. While some issues were raised with respect to the use ofthe site for the proposed activity, overall the main reason for the opposition wasthe 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 wasappropriate or not from an urban design perspective. This is in terms ofhow it relates to the mixed use environment (the Great North Road and

18Para 10.4 of Mr Williams evidence19Para 63 of Mr Klimenkos evidence


14/68



14

King Street frontages) and the residential environment (Dean Street and thesurrounding residential streets);

Whether the character and amenity of the area, particularly the interfacewith the residential area to the south of the site, be appropriately addressedor not. This is particularly in respect to matters arising from the scale of theproposal (including the size of the building - height and height in relation toboundary 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 JamesKindergarten would be significantly adverse, including in terms of increasedtraffic and fume. With respect to the Kindercare site the impact from heavyvehicle traffic on its retaining wall on Dean Street;

Whether the surrounding roading network can accommodate the increasein traffic accessing and exiting the site, particularly at the King Street/GreatNorth Road intersection and on Dean Street. Also whether the traffic (andissues relating to loading and on-street parking) could be managed in asafe and efficient manner on the surrounding streets, as well as the amenityeffects on the surrounding local road network (particularly King and Dean

Streets); and

Whether construction effects, particularly traffic, noise, dust and vibrationcan be appropriately managed.

The Applicant considered that all of the matters could be addressed, such thatadverse effects could be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. TheApplicant also considered that the proposal satisfied the relevant statutory testsand met the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Submitters disagreed.

11. OUR FINDINGS AND REASONS - SECTION 104 MATTERS

11.1 Section 104

Section 104 (consideration of applications) states:

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and anysubmissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, haveregard to

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing theactivity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policystatement:


15/68



15

(vi) a plan or proposed plan: and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant andreasonably necessary to determine the application.

We address these below. Having done that we then return to the section 104Dthreshold 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 wasnot 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 giventhe 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 therelevant statutory tests we consider it appropriate to address these mattersindividually prior to applying the section 104D tests, and then in making an overallbroad judgement.

11.3 Broader Strategic Considerations

We have first considered the proposed activity against the broader strategicdocuments the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Regional Policy Statement.

To provide a context for the consideration of these documents and the proposalwe record here that in summary (we provide more detail later) the Mixed Use zoneseeks to encourage a mix of activities that contribute to the vitality and aestheticqualities of the surrounding environment.

11.4 The Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plans purpose is to:20

Contribute to Aucklands social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being 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 30-40years. Of relevance to the proposal is that the Auckland Plan anticipates that themajority of future growth will be incorporated within defined urban areas, andgrowth being concentrated in and around centres. The Auckland Plan identifies ahierarchy of centres, with the Central City at the top, followed by eight metropolitancentres, 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 AucklandPlan as follows:

It provides significant capacity for business and high density residentialdevelopment within a variety of precincts. It is the focus for regionaltransportation services. It (the city centre) is surrounding by the city fringe, andlies within a 2km walkable catchment (approximately). It provides

20developed 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),


16/68



16

complementary living, business and entertainment activities within traditionaland higher-density neighbourhood living and specialist precincts.

In summary, the Auckland Plan identifies the Central City Fringe area as beingable to accommodate future development of a relatively high density, recognisingits 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 proposeddevelopment 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 Aucklandregion. Chapter 2 (Regional Overview and Strategic Direction) of the ACRPS hasmost relevance to these applications.

The key issues in the ACRPS relevant to the proposal include the need toaccommodate population growth and economic development and avoiding ad hocurban redevelopment.

The strategic objectives contained at section 2.6 of the ACRPS seek to addressthese issues in an integrated manner, and are supported by policies at section2.6.2 (Urban Containment) and 2.6.5 (Urban Structure). The Applicants AEE setout a number of reasons as to why the proposal would be consistent with, and notcontrary to, the ACRPS as follows:

The proposal represents a new development which caters for the growingpopulation 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 buildingimprovement centre, it is considered that, without careful design andconsideration, locating such an activity within existing specified centres couldpotentially generate adverse effects on the typically fine-grained, pedestrian-focused urban environments. Therefore, the location of the proposal in thefringe of an existing (city) centre and on a key transport corridor is consistentwith 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 ofthe report, it is considered that the proposed development, and its location, isappropriate. 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 urbangrowth within defined and coherent Metropolitan Urban Limits21. Mr Chambersstated The directive in both the Auckland Plan and the Draft notified Unitary Planto appropriate greater mixed intensification of Auckland is unequivocal, urgent, andcompelling22and Great North Road is one of Aucklands major transport arterialcorridors, and one of the Auckland Plans key objectives is a major increase in

21Para 3 of Mr Lees evidence22Para 15 of Mr Chambers evidence


17/68



17

public transport, in large part through increased intensification of residentialdevelopment 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 AucklandPlan and the ACRPS (and the PAUP) due to: the significance of Great North Roadas a major transport arterial corridor; the need to encourage land uses that supportpublic transport use; the public investment made (by the Council and its Council

Controlled Organisations) in public transport; and that intensified residentialdevelopment needed to achieve this was not provided by this proposal.

We note here that most of the submitters, including Mr Putt the submitters expertplanning witness, considered that this site was ideal and appropriate forresidential development and that this with a combination of other uses (smallerscale 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 andwould not prefer on this site, and they consider that this development represents alost opportunity due to a lack of mixed use including residential, we must considerthe proposal in the context of the strategic planning documents and the provisions

of the operative and proposed District Plans. In this respect, at the broaderstrategic 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 toaccommodating the proposed traffic generated from the Bunnings proposal24, andthere are no provisions requiring only those activities that support publictransport. This proposal will not adversely affect the functioning of Great NorthRoad as an arterial corridor.

It is our finding that at the broader strategic scale we agree with the Applicant andthe reporting officer; that the proposal is not contrary to the relevant provisions ofthe 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 objectivesand policies of the District Plan. We have set out the general objectives of theBusiness zones below for completeness. While these are more general in naturethan the specific provisions of the Mixed Use zone, they clearly encapsulate theoverall purpose and intent of the business zones. They are:

8.3.1 - To foster the service, employment and productive potential of businessactivity while ensuring the sustainable management of the natural andphysical 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 againstthe maintenance of public and private interests.

23Para 16 of Mr Chambers evidence24 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.


18/68



18

8.3.4- To provide for the safe, economic and convenient movement of peopleand goods within the business zones.

It is within this broader context that we have considered the purpose and intent ofthe Mixed Use Zone as set out in the objectives for the zone and in the ZoneStrategy. 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 andcompatible mix of residential, business, educational and leisure activities inareas of the City, close to the Central Area or existing town centres, whichhave easy access to public transport service.

The related policies are:

By applying a Mixed Use zone to allow the development andenhancement 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 overtime.

The expected outcome is:

This zone, in time will lead to a quality urban environment which provides for amix of residential, retail and business activities, close to the Central Area orexisting retail centres.

The Zone strategy provides a broader explanation of the zone. It states insummary:

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 Business2 or 3 zoned centres, and which are experiencing an increase in residentialactivity. This increase in residential activity, coupled with the range of businessand leisure activities which currently exist in these areas, is creating a uniqueand diverse mixed use urban environment. The zone is designed to enable thedevelopment of an urban environment which is supportive of alternative formsof transport such as public transport and cycling and adds economic vitality byincreasing the diversity of services offered to employees during the day andresidents at night. A high level of amenity which contributes to the liveability ofthe areas will be achieved by requiring new activities and new development tomeet urban design criteria.

While the zoning has an emphasis towards retail, residential andcommercial activityit also recognises that other activities(some with a longand continued occupancy of sites now zoned Mixed Use) at an appropriatescale and suitably designed and operated can sit amongst these activitiesand will in fact provide a mutual benefit further enhancing the overall mixed useenvironment. Potential compatibility issues within the zone are managedthrough a range of assessment criteria and development controls. (boldemphasis added)


19/68



19

The zone, as opposed to each site, has an emphasis towards a mix of retail,residential and commercial activity. However other activities are also contemplatedsubject to being of an appropriate scale, design and operation. We address thisbelow.

The other specific Objectives and Policies relate to the effects of proposedactivities (and buildings) in the zone while Objective c) also has an emphasis onamenity 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 withinthe zone on adjoining activities or on adjacent Residential or Open Spacezones is avoided or mitigated.

Policies

By managing potential compatibility issues within development, betweendevelopments and their neighbours, and between developments andpublic spaces, including roads and open space, through the application of

design criteria and rules, while recognising that amenity values in thiszone are lower than in Residential zones.

By limiting noise levels at the interface between neighbouring Residentialzones and the Mixed Use zones, and within residential developments inthe Mixed Use zones.

By adopting controls which seek to protect privacy and amenity ofoccupants 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 pedestrianamenity and safety, while recognising that these values are derived from amixture of business activities and intensive residential development.

Policies

By requiring new developments to meet urban design criteria relating tostreetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety and buildingscale, form and layout.

By offering bonuses in floor area for new developments, where specifiedplazas, landscaped areas pedestrian facilities and cycleways areprovided.

11.7 Activities Provided for in the Mixed Use Zone

The Bunnings proposal seeks to establish a Building Improvement Centre. Whilethis is one overall activity it consists of a warehouse, a nursery/garden centre,retail of building/home improvement and other merchandise, cafe, offices, carparks and loading and unloading area.

The proposal does not provide any residential activity. This was a constant themewith many of the submitters who considered that a residential component wouldbetter promote the purpose of the zone. The provisions of the Mixed Use zone do


20/68



20

not require that there be a residential component (or a mix of activities) on eachsite. The zone seeks to encourage a mix of uses across the zone (detailed morebelow including those which are permitted as of right). This point was clearlymade to us by the Applicant and the Councils reporting officer. Mr Webb for theArch Hill Residents also acknowledged this in his legal submissions stating, and towhich 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. Hestated that

Missing in the Councils and the applicants assessment is the form ofdevelopment that would have been anticipated by any reasonable person in theredevelopment of the subject site. A complying development, even it wasdiscretionary for some reason, would have presented residential apartments tothe Dean Street frontage with balconies and a variety of fenestrationtreatments.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, beinga full residential development (i.e. not a mix of uses) and that on the corner ofGreat North Road and Bond Street. This latter development he described as beinga good example of the implementation of the Mixed Use Zone with retail along thestreet frontage engaging fully and activating the street with 2-3 levels of residentialapartments above. While Mr Putt appears to consider that these developmentsare what is contemplated in the Mixed Use zone, particularly the residentialcomponent, we accept that the zone does not require a residential component or infact 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 itagainst the activities that are contemplated in the Mixed Use zone. We accept thatthe 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 underthe provisions of the District Plan any new buildings within the Mixed Use zone orwithin 30 metres of residentially-zoned properties are not provided for as permittedactivities and require resource consent approval. In addition, any development ofthe site is subject to consent requirements associated with the contaminationhazard warning of the site. These consent requirements would apply to mostproposals which sought to redevelop the site with new buildings irrespective of theproposed activity.

At 8.7.7 Mixed Use Zone Activities the Table sets out the range of activitiesprovided in the zone. We find that there is a range of activities of a similar nature tothe proposal that are listed as permitted activities in the Mixed Use zone. Theseinclude offices, retail (up to 500m2 per site), storage and warehousing, light

manufacturing and servicing contained within a building, restaurants, cafes andother eating places, and work rooms.

Other permitted activities that could generate a range of effects similar to theproposed activity (traffic, noise, and amenity effects) include: Community Welfarefacilities, Education facilities, Entertainment facilities (up to 500m2 per site),laboratories, Funeral Parlours, Healthcare services, laboratory activities, motor

25Para 10 of Mr Webbs legal submissions.26Para 3.8 of Mr Putts evidence.


21/68



21

vehicle service premises contained within a building, places of assembly (up to500m2per site) and premises for cultural activity and/or natural display.

We also note that the AEE, evidence from the Applicant (Mr Norwell) and thereporting officer addressed the origins of the Mixed Use zone, with reference to theCouncils earlier27section 32 analysis report related to Proposed Plan Change 71(which introduced the Mixed Use zone and included changes to the Business 4zone).

The commentary notes that the reason for applying a non-complying activity statusfor building improvement centres was related primarily to the standard physicalrequirements of such centres, and their contribution or otherwise to the generalamenity of the area.

The AEE and the section 42A report included an excerpt from paragraph 2.4.5.20of that section 32 report regarding building improvement centres as follows:

One of the main objectives of the Mixed Use zone is to achieve mixed usedevelopments which contribute to the amenity of surrounding neighbourhoodsin terms of streetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety. This isachieved by encouraging activity and building, which fronts the street with main

entries and windows overlooking the street and buildings and activities close tothe street frontage. With the exception of tourist complexes, all of the aboveactivities [including building improvement centres] traditionally require largeareas of open and or paved space for vehicle storage and or manoeuvringas well as storage or display of goods for sale or hire. (bold emphasisadded)

While reference to this background does not have any effect on the activity statusfor the present proposal, we find it relevant as to why this activity was not providedfor. As we address later, this proposal has a different typology to that envisagedby the former Auckland City Council when the rules for the Mixed Use zone wereprepared.

As we heard in evidence from the Applicant this proposal is atypical for a Bunningswarehouse. This was insofar as it internalises its parking within the building, thebuilding fronts the Great North and King Street frontages and provides the mainpedestrian entrance from Great North Road and vehicle entries directly from bothGreat North and King Street.

Given the range and nature of the activities provided for in the zone either as ofright or specifically provided for by way of resource consent, the effects they maygenerate and the activities proposed in the Building Improvement Centre, we donot find that the proposed activity per se is inappropriate or contrary to theprovisions of the District Plan. It is the scale and compatibility of the proposedactivity that we need to address (below) and the effects arising from the activityand its scale.

Having determined that the activity per se is not inappropriate, we have addressedthe proposal under four broad hearings The Building and Urban Design,Traffic/Transport Issues, Interface Matters (with the Residential 1 zone land) andOther Matters.

27Approximately ten years ago.


22/68



22

11.8 The Building and Urban Design

The mixed use and commercial area of Arch Hill and Grey Lynn is undergoingtransition 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 arterialtransport route with public transport and walkability elements, but also with anintensifying activity mix and increasing scale of buildings addressing the streetedge. 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 thecontribution that would be made by the proposed Bunnings development. Weaddress this below in terms of the proposed building - its design and relationship toits three road frontages and the surrounding area.

The purpose of the Mixed Use zone, as previously set out, is the development ofvibrant urban areas enabling a diverse and compatible mix of residential, business,educational and leisure activities across the city. The intention is to maintain acompatible relationship between the activities within the Mixed Use zone and withthe adjoining traditional residential areas.

As part of maintaining a compatible relationship and ensuring good urban designoutcomes all new buildings require consent (as a restricted controlled activity).

The plan provisions seek to ensure good design and to avoid or mitigate adverseimpacts by requiring new developments to meet urban design criteria relating tostreetscape appearance and pedestrian amenity and safety and building scale,form and layout.

The design criteria and rules require new development to be designed tocomplement and enhance both streetscape character and pedestrian amenity. Insummary buildings should front roads and concentrate main entries and windowsalong road frontages. Solid blank walls along a road frontage should be avoided.New developments should be visually compatible in scale with the immediatestreetscape. The District Plan anticipates that visual compatibility can be achievedthrough a variety of means, while still allowing buildings to achieve permittedheight, floor area ratio and height in relation to boundary controls. Where larger

buildings are inserted in areas with smaller buildings the extent to which themassing and design of these buildings ensures that they do not over-dominate thebuilt scale of their surroundings is to be taken into account in the assessment ofeffects.

The District Plan rules also require a restricted discretionary consent if a newbuilding is located within 30m of the Residential 1, as is the case here 28.Assessment criteria are specified in the Plan in relation to this. Additional criteriafor specified activities apply to any permitted or controlled activity located within30m 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 valuesof adjacent residential zones along the zone interface and, inparticular, the visual and aural privacy. Various methods can be

28Any permitted or controlled activity listed in the table including all new buildings and required off-streetparking located within 30m of the Residential 1, 2a, 2b, 5, 6a, 7a, 7b and 7c zones. Given this application isnon-complying, technically this rule does not apply however we have applied the relevant assessmentcriteria.

298.7.7.3. Discretionary Activities 8.7.7.3.1 Particular Matters to be Addressed.


23/68



23

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 assessment8.7.7.3.2.a)ii).

Vehicle access to and from the site must be located, where practicable, away fromresidential zoned sites to protect the aural and visual privacy. Where, for safety

reasons, this is impracticable, adequate screening shall be provided in the form offencing or landscaping in order to prevent adverse aural and visual impacts onadjacent residential zoned properties.

We address these below:

Mr Hume (the Applicants Architect) addressed the design process and thebuildings appearance and material on each of its road frontages. He set out thatthe architectural treatment of the proposed building evolved through the design andconsenting processes, including comments from the Urban Design Panel (UDP). Anumber of site and activity configurations were explored in attempting to achievean outcome that reflected the sites context and location, to promote appropriateurban design outcomes and relationships with its surrounding environment.

He, and Ms Skidmore (the Applicants Urban Design specialist) considered that thetools of urban design and architectural mitigation used or considered in the designof the proposal included articulation of building facades, stepping elevations andthe roofline; colours and textures and building material variations; engaging withstreet edges by the placement of entries and active uses; landscape planting;window placement and the use of acoustic louvres (to the carparking areas) andsemi-transparent mesh (around the garden centre/nursery).

We also note that in Mr Humes evidence, Ms Skidmores urban designassessment (which attached the UDPs recommendation) and as reported in thesection 42A report, the proposal was referred to the UDP on the 14thSeptember2012. The UDP was generally supportive of the development stating .and

supports the intention to depart from the customary development model, inresponse to the distinctive conditions of the site and context. The UDP made anumber of recommendations to improve the faade treatment of each streetfrontage. In response to this, the Applicant made a number of changes to theproposed faade modulation, edge treatments, pedestrian access points andgarden centre as a result of feedback from the UDP.

Ms Skidmore considered that overall the scale and form of the building wasappropriate in relation to its surrounding context. She considered the layout andbuilding design acknowledged and responded to the different function andcharacter of Great North Road, King Street and Dean Street. Of particular noteshe stated, with reference to Great North Road, Unlike many bulk service andretail 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 glazedtreatment on Great North Road enabling viewing into the building (timber area andthe caf) as well as the main pedestrian foyer (being fully glazed) which alsoprovides some public space for the public barbecue area that has come to besomewhat of a trademark for Bunnings Warehouses31.

30Para 4.3 of Ms Skidmores evidence.

31ibid


24/68



24

With respect to the Dean Street faade Ms Skidmore considered that the proposalhad 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 physicallystepped providing relief to the faade and allowing for dense planting along aportion of the faade. The varied use of materials will also break down the mass ofthe faade to avoid over-dominance in relation to the residential properties on thesouthern side of the street32.

Overall the Applicants Architect and Urban Designer both opined that theproposed building does not represent the traditional form of development for aBuilding Improvement Centre, and that the design had responded appropriately tothe 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 inBond Street and his home looks out to and over the applicants site33. While heaccepted he was not giving expert evidence he raised a number of concernsabout the design of the building and its relationship to the streets it fronts and thewider area. His comments were contrary to those of Ms Skidmore. In summarywith 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 connectionof 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 pedestrianamenity privilege vehicle movement.

With respect to Dean Street Mr Rennie considered there was:

Lack of activation to street the ground floor is occupied with carparkingand there is no positive interface to the street

Minimal opportunity of chance encounters, public engagement or connectionof 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 privilegelarge vehicle movements.

Mr Rennie, overall, considered that the building was fundamentally unsustainable.

Mr Blunt, the Councils Urban Design Team Leader, reviewed Ms Skidmoresassessment, and advised that From an urban design perspective Im generally inaccord with Rebecca Skidmores assessment. I can support the application.

32Para 6.1 of Ms Skidmores evidence33Para 1A ii of Mr Rennies evidence.


25/68



25

However having heard all of the evidence Mr Blunt provided us with additionalwritten commentary where he raised some issues and questions Mr Blunt saidthe UDP response to Great North Road and King Street (public-facing) was thefocus of the Applicants advisors and the UDP, but he now appeared to havedoubts about the interaction with Dean Street. He essentially concluded with twoquestions:

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 supportedthe 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 Bunningsdevelopments more commonly found in suburban/business areas. This proposal

has a largely internal focus, including the car parking, and there are a number oflevels rather than the conventional model of everything being on the one level.

We have addressed each of the street frontages separately as they are eachdistinct having differing characteristics.

The Great North Road faade

We accept the Applicants experts opinion (and that of the UDP) that the faadetreatment on Great North Road is appropriate in terms of the sites context and thedesign criteria set out in the District Plan. The Great North Road frontage is thepublic frontage of the building, and defines Great North Road as the main publicface 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 thebuilding at the upper and lower levels, the different height, different faadematerials, non-continuous verandah and colours. These all combine to create anappearance of discrete components and a cluster of building forms. We also notethe building complies with the height limits in the District Plan, as well as the otherbulk and location controls.

While we accept that the there is activation and transparency at the Great NorthRoad frontage, this positive interface is only achieved in part with the streetenvironment. This is due to the configuration of the building with the shop floorbeing above the street (approximately 3.5 metres), the caf being slightly below thestreet level (800mm) with the views into the building being of the caf, storedgoods, 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 andthis does provide activation as well as the public barbeque space referred toearlier.

Landscaping on the Great North Road site boundary is generally kept to a smallscale to avoid competing with the building, although we accept that could bechanged on the Great North Road frontage if the street is to have a strongerboulevard or avenue character in the future. Given that the road (and footpath) is

34Mr Blunts officer comments under the heading The Bunnings offer.


26/68



26

controlled by Auckland Transport, it is that organisation that can determine whatstreet trees are appropriate.

From an urban design perspective, better activation could have been achieved bythe proposal including more walk-up accessibility, shopfronts and sleeving ofactivities with more active edges on all street frontages, and windows. Howeverthis is not the proposal in front of us. Overall we are satisfied the Great NorthRoad 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 designwhich include the vertical fins much like those of the Great North Road faade, aswell as a mesh siding to the garden centre/nursery. Also the green wall proposedfor the lower level of the King Street frontage is an appropriate urban designresponse to mitigate this otherwise blank facade, and in the use of this part of thebuilding for cars arriving and leaving the site. A reliance on the effective mitigationprovided by the green wall will require a high level of confidence that the plantingwill 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 arelatively narrow but two way cul de sac with a Residential 1 zoning on thesouthern side (and consisting of Victorian villas and cottages) and the Mixed Usezoning on the northern side (the subject site). Due to its width the trafficenvironment is slow moving with varying amounts of residential and commercialtraffic. In terms of commercial traffic resident submitters estimated 1 3 trucks perday, with 3 5 when the Summit shirt factory was in full operation. Also the carsales yard used to bring in large car transporter trucks, but stopped this whenrequested by the residents due to amenity and safety concerns.

The resident submitters accepted they were at the interface of the zones and alsothat 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 anticipatedand hoped for a mixed use development with a stronger residential component andsmaller scale retail and office/work room style development. They certainlyexpected less general and heavy commercial traffic, and wanted a more deferentialfaade presentation to Dean Street.

The Applicants design response to Dean Street, and Mr Rennies view of it, hasbeen set out above. A number of other submitters, in particular Ms A Aggrey andMr Hopkins and Ms Fou Brown Hopkins who live opposite the site on Dean Streetand Mr Whiley who owns a house opposite the site, also expressed considerableconcern 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 activationother than the delivery vehicle entry and exit.

We accept that the faades bulk will create some adverse effects on the visual andspatial amenity of the Dean Street residents and those nearby. Despite the faadebeing set back from the boundary, being physically stepped, having a varied use ofmaterials and some landscaping and no signage, that nonetheless it is a tall, bulkyfacade 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


27/68



27

what the District Plan allows or envisages and if those effects have beensufficiently avoided or mitigated. We set this out below.

The District Plan manages the interface through development controls (includingset-backs, height-in-relation-to-boundary and height limits). The Zone Strategy35states:

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 andresidential and open space zones is achieved through application ofdevelopment controls at the interface.

Mr Putt, the submitters expert planner, stated in relation to the Zone Strategyabove:

This important statement by building on the purpose of the zone, indicates inmy opinion, that the development controls which include the activities to bepromoted are the key to understanding how the interface with a sensitiveResidential 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. Weagree with Mr Norwell and Mr Blakey. The District Plan sets out at table 8.7.7 -Mixed Use Zone Activi ties, those activities that are either permitted or require aresource consent. Section 8.8.10 Development Controls for Mixed Use Zone setsout the Development Controls for the zone including height and height in relation toboundary controls. We are satisfied that development controls in the context ofthe 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 interfacewith the Residential zone is one anticipated by the District Plan. That said we alsoaccept the District Plan seeks to ensure good design outcomes and that adverseeffects 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. Thekey objective is b):

To ensure that any adverse environmental or amenity impact of activities withinthe zone on adjoining activities or on adjacent Residential or Open Spacezones 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 formand pattern of subdivision, buildings andstreetscape in Auckland's early-established residential neighbourhoods36.

Having considered all of the evidence we find the Dean Street faade is acceptablein terms of the District Plan criteria to avoid over-dominance to the residentialproperties on Dean Street. This is due to the faades set back, the stepping (toprovide some relief to the faade), the varied use of materials (to help break downthe mass), planting along a portion of the faade, and that it complies with theheight and height in relation boundary controls.

35Final paragraph pg B9.

36Decision No. [2013] NZEnvC 240 8thOctober 2013


28/68



28

We also accept that the Dean Street faade has been designed to avoidoverlooking 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, therebyensure visual privacy. Visual privacy was reported to us as important by somesubmitters 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 havea 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 anemphasis on privacy and screening for amenity, at the expense of the southernpart of the proposed building and its activities being able to engage with the streetand the adjacent houses. This has both positive and adverse effects for the DeanStreet residents. While the interface proposed between the mixed use andresidential uses will have an impact on the amenity of Dean Street, it will notjeopardise the survival of the form and pattern of subdivision, buildings andstreetscape in Auckland's early-established residential neighbourhoods,and giventhat the District Plan sets out a permitted bulk and location controls which arelarger than the proposed Bunnings store, that level of adverse effect in our view isanticipated by the District Plan.

Overall the adverse effects from the Dean Street faade treatment are not of ascale 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 overtime.

There were differing views in the evidence from the Applicant and submitters onhow 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 buildingimprovement centre activity and its car parking were no longer required in itscurrent form.

11.11 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles

We accept that the overall planning and development of this project has includedconsideration of CPTED principles. We were advised that Bunnings hascomprehensive security arrangements in place both internally and externally fortheir stores. This includes security elements within the store design, layout, andmaterials and finishes which include CCTV surveillance, staff training andawareness and active management techniques. While these measures are alsoemployed 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 streetedge boundary with well defined edges and has well defined vehicle andpedestrian routes, movement around the building is clear and does not allow forentrapment areas. Casual surveillance is also achieved on the Great North Roadand King Street frontage. Opportunities for surveillance from both passing trafficand adjacent buildings are maximised. Dean Street is less well-served for CPTED

37Pg 3 Amenity - of Ms Aggreys submission.


29/68



29

in terms of casual surveillance from Bunnings staff, due to the blank walls, inactivefrontage, the landscaping and the unloading activity behind closed doors.

However we are satisfied that the security measures outlined by Mr Boersen, thelevel of Bunnings and others traffic, and the range of surrounding activities such asthe Samoan Church and the residential properties, will provide sufficientsurveillance 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 adverseamenity effects have been addressed and mitigated to the extent that they areanticipated by the Mixed Use zone and the District Plan provisions. The bulk of theproposed building and particularly its face to Dean Street were seen by thesubmitters to exacerbate rather than mitigate the scale of building authorised bythe District Plans permitted activity standards.

We accept that the building complies with the development controls of the MixedUse zone. While there will be some adverse amenity effects, the greatest of thesebeing at the Mixed Use/Residential 1 interface, we find these are not significant orout 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 privacyfrom the blank wall and acoustic louvres. However, using Dean Street as theinward goods access will have some aural effects (accepting this is public road).We consider this adverse effect is satisfactorily mitigated by the limitation ondelivery hours and days and the numbers of truck movements permitted (see

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arch-hill-matters
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Bunnings Consent Application Decision

Documents