Proposal: The Establishment of an Early Childhood...

Proposal: The Establishment of an Early Childhood Education Centre at No. 159 Victoria Road, Devonport

RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

ON THE ENVIRONMENT

May 2016

Issue 02

13 May 2016

Job Number: 10329

On behalf of: Butterbee Childcare

No. 159 Victoria Road, Devonport Resource Consent Application

May 2016

The Planning Room Page 2

Document control record

Document Issue No: Author: Approved By: Date:

01 Duncan Ross – Principal Planner Logan Whitelaw – Director 06.11.15

02 Duncan Ross – Principal Planner Logan Whitelaw – Director 13.05.16


May 2016


TABLE OF CONTENTS page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Overview of Proposal 6 1.2 Application Details 7 2.0 SITE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD....................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Application Site 8 2.2 Heritage Listing 9 2.3 Surrounding Development 9 2.3.1 Movement Network 10 3.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY .................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Application Details 11 3.2 Commencement and Duration of Earthworks 12 3.3 Lapsing of Consent 13 3.4 Proposed Conditions of Consent 13 4.0 CONSULTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Pre-Application Meeting 14 4.2 Other Consultation 14 5.0 REASONS FOR APPLICATION ..................................................................................................................... 16 5.1 Operative Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section) 16 5.1.1 Impervious Area ......................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.2 Site Works .................................................................................................................................................. 16 5.1.3 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Car Parking (Shortfall) ................................................................................................................................ 16 5.1.5 Car Parking (Stacked) ................................................................................................................................. 16 5.1.6 Loading Bay ................................................................................................................................................ 16 5.1.7 Signs ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 5.1.8 Childcare Centre ........................................................................................................................................ 17 5.1.9 Additions or Alterations to the Exterior of an Existing Building .............................................................. 17 5.1.10 Maximum Building Coverage .................................................................................................................... 17 5.1.11 Fence Height .............................................................................................................................................. 17 5.2 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 17 5.2.1 Rules with Immediate Legal Effect ............................................................................................................ 18 5.2.2 Site works ................................................................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Overall Activity Status 18 6.0 SCHEDULE 4 MATTERS .............................................................................................................................. 19 6.1 Clause 6 Requirements 19 6.2 Clause 7 Requirements 20 7.0 ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 95A-D ................................... 22 7.1 Request for Public Notification 22 7.2 Assessment of Effects on Immediate Environment 22 7.2.1 No. 157 Victoria Road ................................................................................................................................ 22 7.2.2 No. 161 Victoria Road ................................................................................................................................ 25 7.2.3 No. 3 Ewen Alison Avenue......................................................................................................................... 25 7.2.4 No. 2 Hastings Parade................................................................................................................................ 26 7.3 Assessment of Effects on Wider Environment 27 7.4 Section 95A-D Summary 28 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 104(1)(A) ............................................. 30 8.1 Permitted Baseline 30 8.2 Unimplemented Resource Consents 30


May 2016


8.3 Assessment of Effects on the Environment 30 8.3.1 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 8.3.2 Heritage / Character .................................................................................................................................. 31 8.3.3 Amenity ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 8.3.4 Signage ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 8.3.5 Traffic .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 8.3.5 Intensity / Hours of Operation .................................................................................................................. 36 8.3.6 Silt and Sedimentation .............................................................................................................................. 37 8.3.7 Construction Effects .................................................................................................................................. 37 8.3.8 Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Effects .......................................................................................... 37 8.3.9 Servicing & Stormwater Management ..................................................................................................... 38 8.4 Summary of Assessment of Environmental Effects 39 9.0 SECTION 104 – CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS................................................................................ 40 9.1 Section 104 (1) (A) 40 9.2 Section 104 (1) (B) 40 9.3 Objectives and Policies – District Plan 40 9.3.1 Part 8.3.5 – Stormwater Catchment Management ................................................................................. 40 9.3.2 Part 9.3.1 – Protection of the Environment ............................................................................................. 41 9.3.3 Part 9.3.3 – Servicing Development ......................................................................................................... 41 9.3.4 Part 10.3.2 – Noise .................................................................................................................................... 41 9.3.5 Part 13.3 – Signs ........................................................................................................................................ 43 9.3.6 Part 16.3.2 – Residential Activities ........................................................................................................... 43 9.3.7 Part 16.3.3 – Development Controls ........................................................................................................ 44 9.3.8 Part 16.4.3 – Residential 3 Zone: Built Heritage ...................................................................................... 44 9.4 Assessment Criteria – District Plan 45 9.4.1 Stormwater Management ......................................................................................................................... 45 9.4.2 Site Works .................................................................................................................................................. 46 9.4.3 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................... 47 9.4.4 Transport .................................................................................................................................................... 48 9.4.5 Residential .................................................................................................................................................. 49 9.5 Objectives and Policies – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 57 9.5.1 Single House Zone ..................................................................................................................................... 57 9.5.2 Built Environment: Special Character – Residential North Shore Overlay.............................................. 57 9.5.3 Earthworks ................................................................................................................................................. 57 9.6 Assessment Criteria – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 58 9.6.1 Current Weighting of the Proposed Plan ................................................................................................. 58 9.7 Section 104 (1) (C) 58 9.8 Section 104 (D) 58 10.0 PART II MATTERS........................................................................................................................................ 59 10.1 Purpose of the RMA 59 10.1.1 Section 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 10.1.2 Section 6 ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 10.1.3 Section 7 ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 10.1.4 Section 8 ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 11.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 60


May 2016


APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Certificate of Title Appendix 2: Site Photos Appendix 3: Application Plans Appendix 4: Acoustic Report Appendix 5: Pre-Application Meeting Minutes Appendix 6: Integrated Transport Assessment Appendix 6A: TEAM Traffic: s92 Request for Additional Information Appendix 7: Infrastructure Report Appendix 8: Stormwater Disposal Report Appendix 9: Landscaping Plan Appendix 10 Assessment of Heritage Effects


May 2016


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of Proposal

Butterbee Childcare (the ‘applicant’) seeks resource consent to establish a new Early Childhood Education Centre (the ‘childcare centre’) within an existing dwelling that will accommodate 50 children and employ seven (7) staff members on the site at No. 159 Victoria Road, Devonport (the ‘site’). The proposal is described fully within this Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), and includes the associated construction of a rear building addition, along with new car parking and landscaped manoeuvring areas to the front of the site, with associated outdoor play space along the northern, southern and western boundaries. The proposal has an overall activity status of a Non-Complying activity. The thrust of this assessment is to demonstrate that this proposal satisfies the relevant Objectives and Policies of the District Plan and Proposed Plan; that any adverse effects on the environment associated with this proposal are less than minor and that Council can therefore consent to the application on a non-notified basis. The childcare centre has been designed to cater for the various needs of children based upon their age in accordance with the Ministry of Educations’ Early Childhood Education requirements. The childcare centre will cater for children up to the age of 5 and will operate Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 7:00pm. 11 car parking spaces are proposed to the front of the site inclusive of one (1) accessible space. Of the 11 car parks, four (4) are allocated for staff with the remainder being reserved for the childcare centre clients. All spaces are conventional in design and meet current design standards. There is no parental participation in the daily operation of the childcare centre. Access and egress to the site will be via a one-way circulation arrangement, which relies on two vehicle crossovers, both of which are 3.50m wide at the property boundary, before truncating to a total width of 5.00m at the road kerb. The existing access arrangement is similar to this proposed arrangement. A public transport bus stop is located to the front of the property, which partially blocks one of the vehicle crossovers (when a bus is parked), however this situation is infrequent and discussed in greater detail later in this AEE. Site works are required to form access, manoeuvring and parking areas, the outdoor play areas and for the installation of services. The site is conveniently located in relation to the Devonport commercial core and is of a size, layout and location which enables it to satisfactorily accommodate a medium sized childcare centre. Effects on adjacent land, persons or activities have been assessed later in this AEE as being at a level that is less than minor. The site is considered to be within a highly walkable and accessible location, and its conversion for childcare purposes is considered to be a suitable outcome for the site, noting such land uses respond to community demand and needs. The suitability of the proposal is further expanded upon within Parts 7.0, 8.0 and 9.0 of this AEE and within the supporting expert consultant reports included within the AEE appendices.


May 2016


1.2 Application Details

Site Address: No. 159 Victoria Road, Devonport

Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 195, Pt Lot 2 DP 195

(refer to Appendix 1 – Certificate of Title)

Site Area: 1,252m²

District Plan: Auckland Council District Plan (Operative North Shore Section 2002)

Proposed Plan: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

Zoning: Residential 3A Zone

Proposed Zoning: Single House

Designations/Restrictions: Historic Building, Object or Place: Place No. 593 – Refer to comment in Part 2.3 of this AEE.

Proposed Overlay: Natural Heritage: Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive

Areas – Mt Victoria, Blanket Sensitive Areas [rps/dp]

Built Environment: Special Character – Residential North Shore.

Address for Service: Butterbee Childcare

C/- The Planning Room P.O Box 35674 Browns Bay AUCKLAND 0753 Attn: Duncan Ross – Principal Planner


May 2016


2.0 SITE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD

2.1 Application Site

The 1,252m² residentially zoned site (Figure 1) has a slight (east to west) fall away from the road to the rear of the lot, is rectangular in shape and fronts Victoria Road along its eastern boundary. Access to the site is currently via a one-way arrangement, resulting in two vehicle crossovers onto Victoria Road. The site currently contains an existing dwelling, described as a ‘corner bay’ villa set well back from the street on a double section. At the north western corner of the site a single concreted car garage is located, however this does not appear to have been accessible for a number of years and appears to be used for storage purposes. This garage currently provides a nil front setback, however is proposed to be removed as part of the redevelopment of the front of the site to enable additional car parking to be provided. The majority of the vegetation on site was recently removed by the applicant noting this was not protected under the District Plan. Of note, a large poplar tree previously located to the south of the house was removed (noting this was assessed as being unstable in high winds as a result of recent re-piling of the house cutting key stabilising roots) and a small, heavily modified pohutukawa hedge along the road boundary fence. This hedge which was planted by previous owners, was not afforded any protection under the District Plan and was still in its (relative) infancy. It was noted at the time the removal of the hedge and other trees created some community interest, however the owner acted legally at all times.

A series of Site Photos are appended to this AEE with Appendix 2. Figure 1: Location of 159 Victoria Road, Devonport


May 2016


2.2 Heritage Listing

Planning Map 32A of the District Plan identifies the site as accommodating Heritage Site No. 593, detailed as follows:

No. Location Name Type Map No. 593 159-161 Victoria

Road Victoria Superette (entire exterior of c1910 and 1920-1921 building. Lean to of superette excluded)

Commercial Buildings

32A

It appears the listing relates to the adjoining commercial premise, as opposed to the dwelling on the site, with this incorrectly referenced on the District Plan planning maps. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development is not proposing any works which have the potential to affect the external cladding of these existing buildings (which are protected), although the existing garage structure which adjoins the commercial buildings to the front of the site are proposed to be removed. In this regard an Assessment of Heritage Effects has been prepared by Mr. Graeme Burgess of Burgess and Treep Architects, and is appended to this report as Appendix 10.

2.3 Surrounding Development

The site is located within an established residential area which displays a wide range of dwelling types and qualities, with the area (and subsequent zoning) broadly described within the District Plan as follows:

“Residential 3A is applied to areas of smaller lot sizes, compact street patterns and houses near the street”.

The site is located immediately adjacent to a commercial property to the north. To the east, on the opposite side of Victoria Road is the St Pauls of Devonport Church and a small cemetery, with Mt Victoria, a recreational reserve (encompassing an extinct volcano) sitting further behind. To the south and west are residential properties, with the existing dwelling on the site to the south (157 Victoria Road) listed as a Category B heritage building as follows:

No. Location Name Type Map No. 424 157 Victoria

Road * House 32A

* Not specified. The Assessment of Heritage Effects concludes that:

The house was constructed in the 1880s, for Mr Samuel Tanfield, founding partner of the china merchants Tanfield Potter, and his family. The home is now a rental property. The building has additions and alterations that suggest that it has been divided into a number of independent flats at some time.

Category B references:

“buildings, objects and places of such quality and character that, although less significant than Category A items, should not be wilfully removed, damaged or significantly altered unless there is a compelling reason. The exterior of buildings classified Category B, together with such other elements (for example interior, site) specified in the Schedule, are afforded protection by the District Plan”.


May 2016


2.3.1 Movement Network

Victoria Road is the main road through Devonport, and is accessed via a small stretch of Albert Road which then connects to Lake Road back towards Takapuna. Victoria Road is conventional in design, provides for two-way traffic movements and contains public transport services, with bus stops directly to the front of the site on both sides of the road. 50kph is the speed limit along Victoria Road.


May 2016


3.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY

3.1 Application Details

Number of Children and Hours of Operation As stated previously, it is intended to establish a childcare centre that will cater for 50 children and employ seven (7) staff members. The details of the proposal are illustrated and annotated on the Application Plans annexed as Appendix 3. The childcare centre will cater for children up to the age of 5 and will operate Monday to Friday from 7:00am to 7.00pm. The children will be split into two different age groups, as follows:

10 under 2 years; and

40 over 2 years Building Modifications The building will continue to comprise a single level, split into two distinct portions which are stepped to respond to site contour and development controls prescribed within the District Plan. The front portion of the building (FFL of 23.890) includes the majority of the existing dwelling (which will be reconfigured internally), whilst the rear portion of the building will be new and is situated at a lower level (FFL of 22.300) ensuring it is relatively inconspicuous when viewed from Victoria Road, thus preserving the existing streetscape aesthetic and appeal of the existing dwelling. The majority of the ground floor level associated with the existing portion of the dwelling will be utilised for internal play areas, in addition to the provision of two dedicated quiet rooms, bathroom facilities and a staff room. An external deck with associated landing complements the external appearance of the building. The new lower level of the building, in addition to the two dedicated play areas, will comprise of a small kitchenette, an office, a staff room and a small laundry facility. Heritage comment has been provided with Appendix 10, with the following modification made since the application was first lodged with Council in November 2015. These include the following changes:

Reuse of the existing double hung windows on the southern elevation.

Redesign of the gable with a finial associated with the proposed staff room (rear addition along southern boundary) to remove the HiRB infringement and to avoid detracting from the heritage values of the existing dwelling.

Modifications to the deck rail and the deck base and balustrading treatment associated with the timber decks along the southern boundary.

Modifications to the top band of the wall, to retain the frieze band with brackets. Indoor Play Areas Play Area 1 is located within the existing portion of the dwelling, and is some 93m² in area, effectively spread across four different internal spaces. The new lower level addition will include two indoor play areas (Play Areas 2 and 3) that will cater for children of different ages as annotated on the Application Plans (Appendix 3). Outdoor Play Areas


May 2016


Each of the three indoor play areas will have access to one of the three outdoor play areas, as follows:

Play Area 1 – 203m² located to the rear of the site, provides outdoor space for children aged between 2-5 years;

Play Area 2 – 110m² located to the north of the existing dwelling, provides outdoor space for children aged between 2-5 years;

Play Area 3 – 70m² located to the south of the existing dwelling, provides outdoor space for children aged between 0-2 years.

Exterior Building Materials The exterior treatment of the rear building addition will replicate the existing features of the dwelling, and include: coloursteel roofing, horizontal weatherboard wall cladding. Two signs will be located to the front of the site visible from Victoria Road, with the final designs proposed to be provided to the satisfaction of the Councils Team Leader – Resource Consents in due course in accordance with the dimensions proposed. Car Parking 11 car parking spaces are proposed to the front of the existing dwelling, inclusive of one (1) accessible space. Of the 11 car parks, four (4) of these spaces are allocated for staff with the remainder being reserved for the childcare centre clients. The site provides two stacked car parks adjacent to the southern boundary, with these solely allocated for the use of staff so as to not cause conflict with visitors to the site. Access Access and egress to the site will be via a one way entry/exit arrangement, which relies on two vehicle crossovers 3.50m wide at the property boundary. Both crossovers truncate to a total width of 5.0m at the road kerb. The northern most access is designated as the exit, with the southern access the designated entrance. Acoustic Fencing Acoustic fencing is to be provided along the southern, western and northern boundaries adjacent to the designated outdoor play areas, the details of which are included within the Acoustic Report prepared by Styles Group, annexed as Appendix 4. This will ensure noise levels generated by the childcare centre are “reasonable” in accordance with Section 16 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the ‘Act’). Side fencing will be in the form of both 1.8m and 2.0m high acoustic fencing as described within the original AEE. The 2.00m high fencing requires consent for being 200mm above permitted standards. For the most part, the 2.00m high side and rear fencing cannot be seen clearly from the streetscape as this is generally located to the rear of the site, or bordering the commercial zoned property to the north.

3.2 Commencement and Duration of Earthworks

Site works are required to form access, manoeuvring and parking areas to the front of the site, establish building platforms to the rear, construct the outdoor play areas and for the installation of services. It is expected that the earthworks will commence as soon as possible, and are intended to be completed during the current earthworks season. The quantum of earthworks proposed can be undertaken within a period of approximately 6 weeks from the date of any approval being granted.


May 2016


3.3 Lapsing of Consent

Section 125 of the Act prescribes a standard consent lapse period. In this case, it is requested that a 5-year consent lapse period be imposed.

3.4 Proposed Conditions of Consent

Section 108 of the Act enables Council to impose conditions of consent on any granted consent. The applicant is willing to accept conditions of consent appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed activities. Should consent be granted, it is requested that draft conditions of consent are provided to the applicant for review prior to the release of the consent.


May 2016


4.0 CONSULTATION

4.1 Pre-Application Meeting

A Pre-Application Meeting was held between the applicant’s representatives and the following Council participants on 17 March 2015:

Sarah Peterken – Intermediate Planner

Sam Shumane – Traffic Engineer

Ken Schmidt – Senior Engineer, and

Stephen Curham – Conservation Architect. A record of the minutes has been annexed in Appendix 5. At this meeting the proposal was discussed with the feedback having been incorporated into the submitted application. Key comments relating to the Pre-Application Meeting are as follows: Traffic Matters

It was advised that a traffic engineer be engaged to assess the effects of such uses in addition to car parking and traffic movements.

It was noted that any front boundary treatment shall be permeable to increase visibility for vehicles and pedestrians.

Engineering Matters

The site is located within the SMA 4. Stormwater drains into an existing soakage pit which is located on the site. If this soakage pit is to be relied upon to control stormwater, an assessment from a suitably qualified engineer shall be submitted demonstrating that the soakage works. Mr Schmidt advised that a suitable solution would be to divert stormwater from the roof to the kerb (requiring no attenuation) and potentially the new paved area (car parking) to the existing soakage pit. It was also noted that the proposed “possible extension” as shown on the plans may require a build-over of the existing line.

Heritage Matters

The existing chimneys shall be reinstated/protected.

Mr Curham commented that any associated parking would need to comply with the objectives and policies for this zone, which requires parking and garaging to be provided in a manner that does not detract from the historic character and amenity of these zones.

Planning Matters A description of the notification process was provided to the applicant along with estimated costs. The use of acoustic treatments and landscaping was discussed to mitigate aural and visual effects when viewed from neighbouring residential properties.

4.2 Other Consultation

Section 36A of the Act states that there is no duty to consult any parties with respect to a resource consent application, however an applicant may undertake consultation if they deem it to be necessary. The application was publically notified at the request of the applicant given the proposal was attracting a wide range of feedback and public interest, however as is standard only negative feedback was provided to Council Officers. This resulted in the applicant having an unfair


May 2016


advantage, as the actual community views comprise a far greater range of people than the vocal opponents. The period for lodging submissions to this application closed on the 9th of February 2016. Pursuant to Section 98 of the Resource Management Act 1991, 690 submissions to the application have been received plus 2 late submissions.


May 2016


5.0 REASONS FOR APPLICATION

5.1 Operative Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section)

5.1.1 Impervious Area

Rule 8.4.7.3 Discretionary Activities states that those activities that in the residential zones that exceed maximum impervious areas in Table 8.2, are discretionary activities. The site is located within stormwater management area 4 which permits up to 70% impervious area on site. The development of the site results in 71.42% impervious area and as such consent is required for a Discretionary activity for exceeding the maximum permitted impervious area by 1.42%.

5.1.2 Site Works

Rule 9.4.1.3 (i) Limited Discretionary Activities states that site works greater than 300m² require a Limited Discretionary activity consent. The proposal results in site works of 576m² and as such consent is required as a Limited Discretionary activity.

5.1.3 Noise

Table 10.2 Maximum Permitted Noise Levels by Zone states that noise as measured at any residential zone boundary between the hours of 7.00am – 8.00pm inclusive, Monday – Saturday not exceed 50 decibels. Any noise levels which exceed this standard are considered to be non-complying (noting no control flexibility is provided). Noise levels are calculated as exceeding the 50 decibel limit at the following properties:

3 Ewen Alison Ave – 53 decibels As such, consent is required as a Non-Complying activity for exceeding the prescribed District Plan noise levels by a maximum of 3 decibels associated with the property at 3 Ewen Alison Avenue.

5.1.4 Car Parking (Shortfall)

Rule 12.4.2.1 Parking Standards – Table 12.1 requires the provision of one car park for every 10 children the facility is designed to accommodate, (in this case 5), plus one for every employee (6), plus one disabled car park. The site requires 13 car parks, with only 11 provided (inclusive of one accessible space). Consent is required for a Limited Discretionary activity for a shortfall of four (2) car parking spaces.

5.1.5 Car Parking (Stacked)

Rule 12.4.2.7 (b)(ii) Access to Parking and Loading Spaces states that stacked parking (one behind the other) may be allowed for two parking spaces within any residential development, however as this rule does not apply to business/commercial use, consent is required by way of Limited Discretionary activity for a stacked car parking arrangement.

5.1.6 Loading Bay

Rule 12.4.2.4 Loading Space Standards – Table 12.2 requires the provision of one (1) loading space. The proposed does not provide a loading space. Consent is required by way of Limited Discretionary activity for a shortfall of a single loading bay.


May 2016


5.1.7 Signs

Rule 13.4.2 (a-c) Signs: Discretionary Activities states that any sign of a type which differs in kind or which is additional in number from those specified as a permitted activity requires consent as a discretionary activity. The application proposes two signs, as follows:

Sign 1: Pole-Type Sign (consent required) sign measuring 2.00m in width by 1.25m inheight (2.50m²) with an overall height of 2.50m;

Sign 2: On-Fence Sign (compliant with Rule 13.4.1.2 (b) Residential Zones) measuring1.00m in width by 0.50m in height (0.50m²)

Consent is required for Sign 1 as a Discretionary activity, noting this sign exceeds the permitted threshold for signs within the residential zone.

5.1.8 Childcare Centre

Table 16.2 – Residential Activities states that the establishment of a childcare centre within the Residential 3 zone which is not otherwise permitted (generally <10 children) requires consent for a discretionary activity. It is proposed to establish a childcare centre that will have a capacity of 50 children which therefore requires consideration as a Discretionary activity.

5.1.9 Additions or Alterations to the Exterior of an Existing Building

Table 16.2 – Residential Activities states that additions or alterations to the exterior of an existing building on all properties within the Residential 3 zone requires consent for a limited discretionary activity. It is sought to modify the external appearance of the existing building (generally to the sides and rear) and remove the existing rear chimney which therefore requires consideration as a Limited Discretionary activity.

5.1.10 Maximum Building Coverage

Rule 16.6.1.9 Maximum Building Coverage states that within the Residential 3 zone, on sites larger than 300m², the maximum building coverage shall not exceed 35%. Control flexibility permits an additional 10% coverage via a Limited Discretionary activity to allow existing houses to be extended at a single (ground) level, to avoid changes to the existing roof (adding an additional storey). The proposed single storey addition results in a total building coverage of 41.66% (524m²) and as such consent is required as a Limited Discretionary activity for exceeding the permitted threshold by 6.66%.

5.1.11 Fence Height

Rule 16.6.1.12 Fences, Boundary or Retaining Walls states that a fence may be erected on any residential site boundary provided that the fence does not exceed 1.8 metres in height. Control flexibility is provided within the Residential 3 zone, however it is not considered the fencing proposed within this application is consistent with the specific fence requirements/types detailed within the proposal as this flexibility is generally afforded to front fences. The proposal seeks to provide acoustic fencing up to 2.0m in height along portions of the northern, eastern and southern boundaries (all behind the front face of the existing dwelling) and as such consent is required as a Non-Complying activity for exceeding the permitted fence height by 20cm. Refer to Annex B: Proposed Site Layout within Appendix 4 – Acoustic Report for fence locations.

5.2 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The Proposed Plan was notified on 30 September 2013. Consideration with regard to the rules having immediate legal effect, and the weighting of the Proposed Plan provisions is provided below.


May 2016


5.2.1 Rules with Immediate Legal Effect

Section 86B of the Act states that a rule in a Proposed Plan has legal effect only once a decision on submissions relating to the rule is made and publicly notified under clause 10(4) of Schedule 1 unless Subsection (3) applies. Subsection (3) states that a rule in a Proposed Plan has immediate legal effect if the rule:

protects or relates to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); or

protects areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or

protects areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or

protects historic heritage; or

provides for or relates to aquaculture activities.

The site is zoned Single House under the Proposed Plan and is within the Natural Heritage: Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas – Mt Victoria, Blanket Sensitive Areas [rps/dp] overlay and the Built Environment: Special Character – Residential North Shore overlay. Neither of these overlays have current legal effect.

5.2.2 Site works

Rule 3.H.4.2.1.1 – Site Works states site works in excess of 501m² up to 1,000m² and from 251m³ up to 1,000m³ be considered as a Restricted Discretionary activity. Site works totalling 576m² (and 213m³) are proposed within this application. Consent is required as a Restricted Discretionary activity. There are no other rules contained in the Proposed Plan which relate to this application which have been given immediate legal effect.

5.3 Overall Activity Status

The proposal has an overall activity status of a Non-Complying activity. The thrust of this assessment is to demonstrate that this proposal satisfies the relevant Objectives and Policies of the District Plan and Proposed Plan; that any adverse effects on the environment associated with this proposal are less than minor and that Council can therefore consent to the application on a non-notified basis.


May 2016


6.0 SCHEDULE 4 MATTERS The Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the ‘Act’) sets out the matters to be considered when preparing an AEE. Schedule 4 was replaced on 3 March 2015, by Section 125 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013 (the ‘Amendment Act’). Section 125 states that Schedule 4 of the Act shall be replaced with the Schedule 4 set out in Schedule 1 (New Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991) of the Amendment Act. The new Schedule 4 of Act requires that the matters identified in Clause 6 and Clause 7 are specifically addressed in any AEE submitted for assessment.

6.1 Clause 6 Requirements

Clause 6 of Schedule 4 states that subject to the provisions of any policy statement or plan the AEE must now specifically address the following matters, as reflected in the following table:

Clause 6 Matters Assessment

a) if it is likely that the activity will result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity.

The childcare centre is not anticipated to generate any significant adverse effects on the environment as detailed within Part 7.0 of this Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). The adverse effects on the environment are assessed as being less than minor. No alternative locations are therefore deemed to be relevant to the application, and the childcare centre is deemed suitable for the site and the establishment of a childcare centre can therefore be considered. Should the application have been determined to generate significant adverse effects, the application would have been lodged on a limited or fully notified basis. The expert consultant reports provided within this application as Appendices all confirm the threshold for adverse effects are less than minor and thus the application can be supported on a non-notified basis.

b) an assessment of the actual or potential effect on the environment of the activity.

Please refer to Part 7.0 of the AEE for a comprehensive assessment of the actual and potential effects on the environment.

c) if the activity includes the use of hazardous substances and installations, an assessment of any risks to the environment that are likely to arise from such use.

The childcare centre does not include the use of any hazardous substances and installations, and as such no further consideration is required.

d) if the activity includes the discharge of any contaminant, a description of—

i. the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and

ii. any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

The childcare centre does not include the discharge of any contaminants, with the exception of noise. Noise is fully detailed within Part 8.3.1 of this AEE and within the Acoustic Report contained within Appendix 4. The Acoustic Report confirms:

“When considering the District Plan zoning and the actual noise levels that will be experienced at the surrounding sites in the context of the existing noise environment, and the limited frequency and duration of the noise it is our assessment that the potential degree of adverse noise effects (in isolation) arising from the proposed activity is less than minor and that the noise emissions will be reasonable in terms of section 16 of the Act.”.

e) a description of the mitigation measures (including safeguards and contingency plans where relevant) to be undertaken to help prevent or reduce the actual or

Acoustic mitigation measures are proposed to be addressed via various conditions of consent relating to the installation of acoustic fencing, building construction standards, and amenity improvements.


May 2016


potential effect. Earthworks & stormwater disposal will be minimised through the introduction of suitable mitigation techniques where relevant.

f) identification of the persons affected by the activity, any consultation undertaken, and any response to the views of any person consulted.

Written approval has not been obtained, nor sought from any surrounding property. The lot adjoining the northern boundary is used for commercial purposes, whilst the surrounding residential lots are not considered affected, as detailed within the “Assessment of Noise Effects” contained within the Acoustic Report.

g) if the scale and significance of the activity's effects are such that monitoring is required, a description of how and by whom the effects will be monitored if the activity is approved.

The scale and significance of the adverse effects generated are not deemed to be at a threshold where on-going monitoring is required, albeit it is not uncommon for Council to apply a review condition, particularly in relation to traffic & noise measures.

h) if the activity will, or is likely to, have adverse effects that are more than minor on the exercise of a protected customary right, a description of possible alternative locations or methods for the exercise of the activity (unless written approval for the activity is given by the protected customary rights group).

The childcare centre is not likely to generate any adverse effects that are considered more than minor on the exercise of any customary right. No alternative locations are therefore deemed to be relevant to the childcare centre, as there is no adverse effect on any protected customary rights beyond the permitted threshold.

6.2 Clause 7 Requirements

Clause 7 of Schedule 4 states that subject to the provisions of any policy statement or plan the AEE must now specifically address the following matters, as reflected in the following table:

Clause 7 Matters Assessment

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

There are positive social, economic and cultural effects as a result of this proposal, namely the childcare centre will provide a much needed community service, will result in employment opportunities for qualified staff and provide convenient and accessible childcare services for local residents.

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

There are minimal physical effects generated on the locality, save for minor earthworks to create access, parking and outdoor play areas. The existing building will be heritage enhanced, with minimal additions and alterations needed to accommodate the childcare centre, with the reuse of the existing building ensuring the built form and development outcome remain generally compatible with surrounding properties and the zone itself.

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

There are no effects on the ecosystems, including plants or animals as a result of the childcare centre as the site has been heavily modified in the past and does not provide any habitat or area of ecological value of note. Non-protected vegetation has previously been removed from site, noting that this was not protected.

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

There are no effects on the aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural value, or other special value for either present or future generations Whilst it is noted the site is located within the Built Heritage (Residential 3) zone, as the building is being retained, with the majority of any changes to the rear, (with these generally involving the removal of unsympathetic additions) the on-going protection of the heritage values of the site is ensured, thus meeting key built form objectives for the zone. It is argued the use of the existing building for childcare purposes will ensure its continued upkeep and relevance into the future. The Assessment of Heritage Effects confirms that:

“The proposal respects the qualities and character of the


May 2016


existing house on the property. The proposed additions and alterations are largely at the back of the existing building and the largest element is set behind and below the house, separated by the linking element.

The proposed works will not effect the streetscape appearance of the building and will have little if any effect on the overall streetscape appearance of the neighbourhood”.

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

There are limited discharge of contaminants resulting from this application (please refer to Part 8.3.1 of this AEE to where specific comment is provided in relation to ‘noise’). The childcare centre is considered conventional in nature, with effluent disposal proposed to be discharged via conventional means with all other servicing able to be provided by way of existing network connections.

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

The childcare centre does not include the use of any hazardous substances and installations, and as such there are no effects generated on the neighbourhood or wider community.


May 2016


7.0 ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 95A-D A consent authority has the discretion whether to publicly notify an application unless a rule or National Environmental Standard (NES) precludes public notification (in which case the consent authority must not publicly notify) or Section 95A(2) applies, which states that an application must be publicly notified if:

the consent authority deems the activity will have, or is likely to have, adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor (under Section 95D);

the applicant requests public notification of the application; or

a rule in a plan or a national environment standard requires public notification. Section 95D requires that in determining whether an activity will have, or is likely to have, adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor, the consent authority must disregard:

effects on persons who own and occupy the land in, on or over which the application relates, or land adjacent to that land.

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

trade competition and the effects of trade competition. The consent authority may also disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if a rule or NES permits an activity with that effect. Notwithstanding all the above, including whether a rule or NES precludes public notification or the applicant has not requested notification, a consent authority has the discretion to publicly notify an application if it decides there are special circumstances in relation to the application. An application must also be publicly notified if the consent authority has not made a determination in regards to either limited or full notification and information requested under Section 92 has not been provided within the statutory and/or agreed timeframe or the applicant has refused to provide the information.

7.1 Request for Public Notification

The applicant requested the proposal be publically notified given the high community support and interest in the proposal. The period for lodging submissions to this application closed on the 9th of February 2016 and at the end of the submission period 690 submissions relating to the application were received plus two (2) late submissions.

7.2 Assessment of Effects on Immediate Environment

It is considered the majority of effects generated by the infringements of the District Plan fall solely on the site itself, noting there are some infringements that warrant specific comment in relation to adjoining properties. These are summarised below.

7.2.1 No. 157 Victoria Road

Effects that shall be considered against this property directly relate to noise generation, shading, traffic movements and building coverage, all of which do not comply with relevant permitted standards prescribed within the District Plan. These are discussed below: Noise Generation


May 2016


Noise is specifically referenced within Appendix 4 and the following table (over page) which states:

The District Plan permitted activity noise criteria will be complied with at all sites, with the exception of 157 Victoria Road, 3 Ewen Alison Avenue and 2 Hastings Parade. These sites are more exposed to the noise due to their proximity to the outdoor play area for the older children. For these sites we recommend that a day time noise limit of 55 dB LA10 is appropriate and will be complied with.

Receiving Site / Assessment Position Noise emissions from the ECEC averaged over the day in accordance with NZS 6802:1991

Relevant District Plan noise criteria for permitted activities

98 Victoria Road 44 LA10 50 LA10 100 Victoria Road 46 LA10 50 LA10 157 Victoria Road

- Outside upper façade of dwelling

50 LA10 47 LA10

50 LA10

161 Victoria Road - Behind the commercial

buildings - Outside the veterinary clinic

52 LA10

53 LA10

65 LA10

3 Ewen Alison Avenue 53 LA10 50 LA10 5 Ewen Alison Avenue 42 LA10 50 LA10 2 Hastings Parade 50 LA10 50 LA10 4 Hastings Parade 43 LA10 50 LA10

It is well recognised that noise levels higher than what the District Plan prescribes for permitted activities are acceptable to the community provided that the noise level, incidence, timing and duration is properly managed. Allowing childcare centres to generate noise levels of up to 55 dB LA10 during the day in residential areas is certainly not without precedent in New Zealand. Numerous childcare centres in Auckland presently operate on this basis, subject to appropriate resource consent conditions.

From a noise perspective, the reduction in the number of children on site has resulted in the noise levels generated by the proposed childcare centre complying with the specified standards of the District Plan. No further consideration of noise against this property is required in this instance. Shading The amendments to the rear entrance to the new addition has removed the previous HiRB infringement and as such, no shading is generated as a result of the proposed rear addition. Traffic Movements Traffic effects relating to the childcare centre relate to the parking demand and vehicle trip generation in a sense that additional vehicle movements, and the character of vehicle movements associated with the childcare centre may have the potential to create effects that are above what could be expected associated with a residential activity on site. These matters, and associated effects are detailed below, as per the comment provided in the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) prepared by Abley Transportation Consultants included within Appendix 6. This information was reviewed by Team Traffic, and is included within Appendix 6A. Appendix 6 confirms:


May 2016


Parking Demand: “The childcare centre will increase the parking demand of the site. The RTA guidelines for parking demand averaged at 0.23 cars per child at any one time, with an average length of stay for all centres being 6.8 minutes. Similarly, the TDB database showed that the average parking demand rate during the weekday morning peak is 0.24 cars per child. Taking the two parking demand rates into account (0.24 cars per child) we can expect a parking demand of 14 cars during the peak hour. The effect of the anticipated parking demand with the childcare centre is considered less than minor as the probability of these 14 vehicles simultaneously visiting the site at any one time is considered low, supported by the anticipated typical visiting period of 6.8 minutes”.

Vehicle Trip Generation:

“The effect of the expected trips generated with the proposal is considered as less than minor as a 4.9% increase in traffic volume is considered to be well within the daily fluctuations of traffic flows. Furthermore the majority of trips to the site are pass-by and diverted-trips, and only a small percentage will be new trips due to the nature of the business. The parent(s) dropping off the child (or children) to the site is highly likely to be on the way to nearby schools and/or commuting to work.

The above indicates the effects of the car parking shortfall and the increased vehicle trip generation is able to be accommodated by the parking provided on site and by the wider movement network. It is expected that any additional vehicle movements created by the proposal, and the frequency of vehicle movements on Victoria Road will not be overly noticeable given the Integrated Transport Assessment concludes that sufficient parking is provided (thus not relying on parking on the street to the front of the adjoining site for example) and the effects on increased traffic movements and character are less than minor. Appendix 6A confirms that:

There is still a technical shortfall of two car parking spaces however this is considered acceptable given that there is on street parking available within easy walking distance of the centre. This fact is confirmed by the parking survey that was undertaken on the 16 February 2016. At any time during the peak periods there are between 14 and 24 car parking spaces available on the road with in a minutes’ walk of the site. Most staff we believe would arrive and depart during the peak periods so it is believed that there is adequate provision of parking on the local road network to accommodate any over flow parking by staff. We do not believe that this will have a noticeable effect on local residents as the area already has ferry commuters parking in the streets.

As such it is considered any transport effects on the property at No. 157 Victoria Road are less than minor. Building Coverage The intent of the building coverage rule is to ensure that the intensity of development is in character with that of surrounding residential areas. In this instance the property adjoins both commercial and residential zoned properties (commercial premises have an unlimited building coverage control – refer to Table 15.5 Building Coverage Controls of the District Plan). The proposed addition results in an exceeded of the permitted coverage by 6.66%, however this is well within the 10% threshold able to be considered for the Residential 3 zone. Within the Residential 3 zone (relative to older buildings) the District Plan states:


May 2016


Older houses in this zone should be able to take advantage of greater coverage by way of Control Flexibility if they can remain single storey houses. The flexibility will only be exercised in relation to existing houses as at 22 March 2007 in the zone, where it will allow additions that protect the form of the existing roof, and protect other aspects of historic character generally

The additions to the rear of the site are complementary to the existing dwelling, and single storey, thus consistent with the expectations for control flexibility. Large undeveloped areas (primarily as a result of the outdoor play areas) enable a spacious feel to the site to be maintained, along with compliance with building length controls (to prevent bulk and dominance on adjoining sites) and yard setback controls. It is not considered the effects of the increased building footprint will create any noticeable effects when considered in the context of the zone and immediate setting as the ability for intensive development is already established in the immediate locality given the location of the adjoining commercial property, in addition the extent of the non-compliance is deemed small.

7.2.2 No. 161 Victoria Road

Effects that shall be considered against this property directly relate to the over-height (acoustic) fencing and building coverage. Over-height (Acoustic) Fencing Refer to comments under No. 3 Ewan Alison Avenue below. The over-height acoustic fencing extends in two different portions enclosing outdoor play area No. 1 (length of approx. 8.00m) and outdoor play area No. 2 (length of approx. 6.00m). The fence will be constructed on a common boundary shared with a commercial premise, and is not anticipated to create noticeable effects on this site as the fence will be replacing an existing fence of a similar dimension, noting the effects of this fence are already evident and established. Refer to Appendix 2 for corresponding site photos of the existing common boundary fence. Building Coverage Refer to general comments provided under No. 157 Victoria Road above.

7.2.3 No. 3 Ewen Alison Avenue

Effects that shall be considered against this property directly relate to the over-height (acoustic) fencing, noise generation and building coverage, all of which do not comply with relevant permitted standards prescribed within the District Plan. These are discussed below: Over-height (Acoustic) Fencing Permitted fencing shall not exceed 1.80m in height, notwithstanding the extra 200mm in this instance is considered to be a small increase above the permitted standard. It is noted there is no maximum height limit prescribed under the control flexibility associated with Limited Discretionary applications within the Residential 3 zone. Rather the fence shall ensure several factors are complied with, most notably the dwelling is not obscured, and the materials are consistent with the expectations for the zone. The intent of the fencing rule “in the Residential 3 zone, is to maintain the historic character of the streetscapes, which relies heavily on architectural character, a direct and visually interactive relationship with the street, and in some instances, an open landscape character”.


May 2016


The rule is clearly intended to protect the streetscape within the zone, noting the over-height boundary (acoustic) fencing is located directly adjacent to the proposed outdoor play areas, as opposed to enclosing the entirety of the site. Over height fencing is proposed along the entire common boundary of this site, with the primary effects of this being shading, bulk dominance and appearance. Visually the fence will obscure views between and across sites (given its design), however this is of lesser concern noting different variations of a 1.8m fence could be constructed as of right with the same general effects. As there are no retaining walls proposed, the effects are primarily concerned with the additional 20cm of extra fence height, which is in not considered to be of a scale that create effects on the wider environment that are overly obvious, as the degree of infringement is small. It is noted the proposed fence is located adjacent to an existing brick wall of this adjoining dwelling (which has been constructed with a nil setback to the site) as shown on the Site Photos contained within Appendix 2, and adjoins a portion of this adjoining sites outdoor living area. Given the size of the outdoor living court associated with this adjoining site, and the use of this area of outdoor living space the effects of an over-height fence long this common boundary is deemed to be less than minor Noise Generation Refer to general comments provided under No. 157 Victoria Road above. In addition, the Acoustic Report states:

The referenced daytime noise criteria will be complied with at all residentially zoned sites except 3 Ewen Alison Avenue. For this site we have recommended a daytime noise limit of 55 dB LA10. In accordance with the provisions of NZS 6802:1991, this noise limit is appropriate for a residential area. We have recommended conditions for noise mitigation that we consider will form part of the best practicable option to ensure that noise emissions do not exceed a reasonable level. The existing noise environment is controlled by road traffic. Measurements demonstrate noise levels at the neighbouring sites on Victoria Road of up to 63 dB LA10 and 50 dB LA95 during the day. The existing road traffic noise at 3 Ewen Alison Avenue will be approximately 10 decibels lower due to the additional separation distance from Victoria Street and partial screening provided by the existing dwellings. However, with the proposed acoustically effective fencing erected on the boundaries of the ECEC, the road traffic noise from public vehicles on Victoria Street being received at 3 Ewen Alison Avenue will be reduced at all times (including evenings, weekends and public holidays when there is no noise at all from the childcare centre). When considering the District Plan zoning and the actual noise levels that will be experienced at the surrounding sites in the context of the existing noise environment, and the limited frequency and duration of the noise it is our assessment that the potential degree of adverse noise effects (in isolation) arising from the proposed activity is less than minor and that the noise emissions will be reasonable in terms of section 16 of the Act.

Building Coverage Refer to general comments provided under No. 157 Victoria Road above.

7.2.4 No. 2 Hastings Parade

Effects that shall be considered against this property directly relate to the over height (acoustic) fencing, shading, noise generation and building coverage, all of which do not comply with relevant permitted standards prescribed within the District Plan. These are discussed below: Over-height (Acoustic) Fencing


May 2016


Refer to comments under No. 3 Ewan Alison Avenue above. The over-height acoustic fencing extends the full length of the common boundary, (approximately 9.0m) before returning to the edge of the new rear building addition, enclosing Outdoor Play Area No. 1. Shading Refer to general comments provided under No. 157 Victoria Road above. In addition to the above, the shading is anticipated to fall on a portion of this sites outdoor living court, and will generate small effects compared to those on the property at No. 157 Victoria Road. Any shading, albeit small, will fall on the edge (and furthermost part) of this sites outdoor living court, however the implications of this are expected to be negligible. Shading will not be cast on any part of the residential dwelling, it will fall solely on the rear yard setback area which is again anticipated to experience low usage. Noting the size of the infringement any effects generated by this non-compliance are deemed to be less than minor. Noise Generation Refer to general comments provided under No. 157 Victoria Road above. Building Coverage Refer to general comments provided under No. 157 Victoria Road above.

7.3 Assessment of Effects on Wider Environment

Wider effects on the environment are considered to be less than minor. Typical effects generated by childcare centres typically related to noise levels, site intensity and traffic. These key considerations have been addressed within this AEE. The appropriateness of childcare centres within a residential zone is often discussed, noting in our professional opinion residential zoned sites (where they meet acceptable thresholds) are appropriate locations. Childcare centres which provide for a certain number of children require resource consent approval from Council, and this matter alone does not automatically mean the use is inappropriate within the zone, rather the level of assessment and onus on the applicant to justify the extent of effects in relation to District Plan assessment criteria, and broader Objectives and Policies needs to be demonstrated. In this regard, we have relied on the expert advice from our engaged co-consultants, as well as relying on our own experience in dealing with over 50 childcare centres of varying sizes, the majority of which have been approved within residential zones. There is an underlying notion that childcare centres are unsuitable within residential zones, however we strong disagree with this assumption, and argue that their provision within the zone is highly appropriate. Alternative zones, such as commercial and light industrial zones (for example) are less suited, given the nature of surrounding land uses, the heavy reliance on private vehicle movements to pick up and drop off children, and the various overlays that are typically found within such zones. In addition, the operation of a childcare centre within a commercial zone provides limited on-going business activity outside of operating hours, and although the rules are often more permissive in these zones (increased noise thresholds for example) the provision of a childcare centre within a residential setting provides numerous benefits to local communities. These include:

Provision of a community service within walking distance of a residential population base;


May 2016


Opening hours generally coincide with times neighbouring residents are at work, and no evening or weekend noise is seen as a beneficial outcome;

Re-use of existing housing stock for a use with a community benefit;

Activation during the day provides security to surrounding properties. In terms of wider effects of a childcare centre establishing (ignoring any commercial or competition effects), the potential for wider effects to be generated in this instance are minimal, as confirmed within the expert consultant reports. It is considered any small effects generated by the childcare centre are deemed to fall solely on adjoining properties & not on the wider public. As detailed above, these effects (particularly with regards to noise) are deemed to be “reasonable” whilst from a traffic and land use perspective any potential effects are deemed to be less than minor. From a contextual perspective, noting the location of the site within a designated heritage area, there may be some argument that the overall modifications to the site detrimentally affect the heritage contribution the existing dwelling makes to the wider area. It is considered, the adaptive reuse, the retention of the existing heritage fabric, and the modifications to the rear collectively ensure that the wider intentions for the zone are not diminished, and that from a built form perspective the existing dwelling will continue to contribute to the wider character of the area, without compromising the existing heritage values. Considering the proposal in a wider setting, it is considered effects on the wider environment are insignificant.

7.4 Section 95A-D Summary

Based on the foregoing assessment of effects of Clause 6 and 7 matters within Part 6.0 of this AEE, and the conclusions within Part 8.0 of this AEE it is concluded that the childcare centre will have less than minor effects on the immediate and surrounding environment. Written approval has not been obtained from any party because no parties are considered to be adversely affected as:

The proposed generally complies with all bulk and location development, & where it doesn’t, the proposal remains consistent with the intent of the corresponding rule.

The site to the north is used for commercial purposes which establishes a non-residential baseline in the immediate locality;

The site to the south is used for residential purposes, however it is noted the area is used for manoeuvring and access purposes & contains an existing outbuilding, as opposed to any providing any residential living purpose (outdoor living court or similar);

Any adverse effects associated with site works and construction in general can be satisfactorily contained and mitigated within the site and these are no different in nature to what would be expected for a residential build/addition;

Traffic movements to and from the site can be undertaken in a safe and efficient manner as confirmed in the ITA;

Loading will occur outside the drop off and pick times, so that any delivery vehicles will have a number of empty parking spaces to utilise;

The proposal will incorporate new acoustic fencing that will ensure a reasonable level of visual and aural privacy is maintained;

The childcare centre will only operate between the hours of 7:00am – 7.00pm Monday to Friday (at other times the only persons on site will be staff and cleaners, to respond to community needs, noting the existing Devonport childcare centre is open to 5.30pm only;


May 2016


The existing dwelling will be retained, with any building modifications being designed to a high architectural standard with a consistent design considered to complement the existing character of the wider zone.

Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has requested that the proposal be publically notified so the Council, Commissioners and wider public can understand the overwhelming level of support for such a land use on site, acknowledging the positive benefits a locally owned childcare centre can bring to locations such as Devonport, where traditionally lower than normal provision has been made for early education facilities.


May 2016


8.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 104(1)(A) The Fourth Schedule of the Act sets out the matters to be considered when preparing an AEE on the environment. In particular, Clause 1 of Schedule 4 requires an assessment to assess both the actual and potential effects of the activity; and to describe the mitigation measures to be undertaken to help prevent or reduce the actual or potential effects. Matters to be considered by the Council when assessing an application for consent under Section 104 of the Act include, subject to Part II, any actual or potential effects on the environment and any relevant objectives, policies, rules or other provisions of a Plan or Proposed Plan.

8.1 Permitted Baseline

The District Plan provides for various land use opportunities on site where they meet the development control rules for the Residential 3 zone. It is noted however than any modification to any existing building requires resource consent as a controlled activity, so the ability to undertake any development “as of right” is diminished. Notwithstanding this, subject to appropriate built form and material use there are a range of activities that can be undertaken within the zone, including:

Residential care centre or boarding house housing up to 7 residents (including live-in support staff); and

Home occupations. In addition, the existing site and surrounds have been described above and represent the benchmark against which all effects arising from this activity shall be assessed.

8.2 Unimplemented Resource Consents

There are no unimplemented resource consent associated with the site.

8.3 Assessment of Effects on the Environment

8.3.1 Noise

Noise from childcare centres will typically arise from children engaged in free play and from vehicle movements during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. At all other times little noise is typically generated by the activity or from the site itself. Noise matters are explained and discussed in detail in the Acoustic Report annexed in Appendix 4. The Acoustic Report concludes that:

The referenced District Plan noise controls will be complied with at all sites, with the exception of 3 Ewen Alison Avenue. This site is more exposed to the noise due to its proximity to the outdoor play area for the older children. For this site we recommend that a day time noise limit of 55 dB LA10 is appropriate and will be complied with. It is well recognised that noise levels higher than what the District Plan prescribes for permitted activities are acceptable to the community provided that the noise level, frequency (incidence), timing and duration is properly managed. Allowing childcare centres to generate noise levels of up to 55 dB LA10 during the day in residential areas is certainly not without precedent in New Zealand. Numerous childcare centres in Auckland presently operate on this basis, subject to appropriate resource consent conditions...


May 2016


In reaching the above conclusion, a series of mitigation measures have been identified which will assist in ensuring reasonable noise levels are achieved. These are as follows:

1) Prior to the operation of the childcare centre, the consent holder shall construct acoustically effective fencing along the boundaries of the site to entirely screen the outdoor play areas and parking lot as illustrated in the final site plans (insert final site plan reference once available). The acoustic fencing shall be no less than 1.8 m in height along the southern boundary common with 159 and 157 Victoria Road; all other acoustic fencing shall be no less than 2.0 m in height. All acoustic fencing shall have no gaps along the length or at the base, including where it adjoins any other structure. The surface mass of the fencing shall be no less than 10 kg/m2 with any palings overlapped or battened. Any gates in the fencing shall also meet the above specifications when closed. The fencing shall be maintained as an acoustically effective barrier for as long as this consent is given effect to. 2) The childcare centre shall not operate outside the hours of 07:00 – 19:00, Monday to Friday or on public holidays. This does not preclude administration or maintenance of the premises outside of these hours. 3) The childcare centre shall operate with no more than 50 children on site at any one time. 4) The consent holder shall ensure that the surface of any timber decking available to the children as outdoor play space is covered with a resilient material, such as artificial turf or mats during periods of outdoor play. 5) The outdoor play area shall not include any fixed play equipment that would allow children to congregate at a height of more than 1 m above ground level where they can overlook the acoustic fencing on the playground boundary. 6) The operation of the childcare centre shall comply with the following noise limits within the boundary of the receiving site when measured and assessed in accordance with NZS 6801:1991 and NZS 6802:1991:

Receiving Site Mon – Fri 07:00 – 22:00

Sat, Sun & Public Holidays

07:00 – 22:00

All Other Times

3 Ewen Alison Ave 55 dB LA10

45 dB L A10

40 dB L A10

75 dB L Amax

All other residentially zoned sites

50 dB L A10

45 dB L A10

40 dB L A10

75 dB L Amax

All business zoned sites 65 dB L A10

65 dB L A10

65 dB L A10

Other Noise Effects: There may be some short term construction effects associated with the building works, however, these effects can be controlled with the imposition of suitable conditions of consent including restrictions on the hours of operation and maximum noise levels. Therefore, we consider that noise emitted from the site throughout construction and as a result of the childcare centre operating will be less than minor and reasonable when considered against the surrounding environment.

8.3.2 Heritage / Character

The District Plan states the following:


May 2016


The Residential 3 zone has been applied to the old established settlements of Devonport […]. The retention and enhancement of the built heritage values of these areas is important as it reflects both community aspirations and the intrinsic values of heritage. It ensures that a legacy is maintained in a state suitable for passing on to future generations. Built heritage is vulnerable to unsympathetic development and, to be sustainable and to maintain existing authenticity the special character must be identified and protected against the impacts of changes.

The proposal is consistent with the overall intent of the zone, which primarily focuses on the retention of existing housing stock, and the preservation of heritage values associated with any redevelopment. In this instance the proposed additions to the rear are considered to be complementary to the existing dwelling, noting these are in keeping with the expectations of the District Plan. The zone provides for a limited range of non-residential activities to enable the daily needs of residents to be served, however the overall thrust of the District Plan is to encourage these to be undertaken within existing buildings rather than require the demolition and complete redevelopment of sites. The proposal is consistent with these intentions. Visually the building is highly visible and prominent when viewed from Victoria Road, noting a previous (unprotected) pohutukawa hedge that screened the existing dwelling has been removed. The existing dwelling is considered to contribute strongly to the streetscape character of the immediate area, known for its architectural style and built form outcomes and promoting its visibility strengthens the collective heritage values of the immediate area. Upon completion of building works the site will be professionally landscaped. The building addition to the rear, and the overall site layout, has been designed to a high architectural standard with the character generally replicated in terms of design, scale and materials, notwithstanding the addition provided provides sufficient variation to enable it to be identified as a latter addition to the original fabric and footprint of the existing dwelling. This is a desirable heritage objective and regularly promoted by Heritage Architects. Rear Chimney Removal At the front of the house, at the centre of the southern ridge, there is a polychromatic brick chimney. The chimney is stepped in form, and is flared at the top with a coved plaster capping. The chimney at the rear of the house, not clearly if at all visible from Victoria Road, is similar. The removal of the rear chimney is detailed in the Assessment of Heritage Effects as follows:

“It is proposed to remove the rear chimney to enable the construction of the link between the house and the playroom wing across the rear face of the building. The position of the chimney is shown on the existing plan; sheet A2.1. This chimney is not highly visible from the street. It is set at the back of the house close to the centre of the western wall. It serves a double fireplace. I consider that the removal of this chimney will have some effect on the heritage appearance of the building, however the overall effect of the loss of the chimney is minor as this chimney is a secondary feature of the building, and the chimney is not clearly seen from the street. The

removal of the chimney facilitates the re-planning of the interior”.. Noting the above, given the size of the site; its topography; the design and layout of the proposed building addition and play areas; its ability to provide a safe and secure environment for the children in attendance; that the childcare activity is generally well screened from the public, we consider that this site provides an opportunity to establish a high quality childcare centre that will retain a high level of amenity and heritage quality consistent with that envisaged within the Residential 3 zone.


May 2016


Landscaping A key consideration relating to the treatment of proposals within the Residential 3 zone is that related to landscaping. In order to ensure the dwelling retains its residential appearance when viewed from the street, and is not dominated by excessive parking and manoeuvring areas, a detailed Landscaping Plan (Appendix 9) has been prepared for the site by Greenwood and Associates. Council requested that the Landscaping Plan includes a detailed assessment of the existing streetscape character. This has been provided as follows:

“frontages predominantly comprise picket fences or old plastered walls where retaining is required, with the use of hedges and deciduous trees within the boundary. The use of metrosiderous excels as the street tree predominates. The general theme is traditional ‘English formal’ that is typical of the Devonport vernacular, synonymous with the villa architectural aesthetic. The proposed landscape design will give a clean and simple look which unifies the neighbouring properties, continuing the street theme”.

A key consideration of the District Plan relates to the treatment of car parking areas to the front of heritage buildings. This is not an uncommon arrangement, noting many heritage dwellings provide no rear vehicular access (given minimal historic side setbacks) and therefore rely on parking being provided to the front of the site in various arrangements. Such an outcome is not uncommon within Devonport and whilst the intent of the District Plan is clear, the reality is that parking is commonly provided, or buildings are modified or raised to accommodate basement parking on site (a number of villas along Victoria Road have been raised to allow for such an arrangement to be provided). Notwithstanding the above, to ensure a grassed and residential appearance is maintained and maximized to the front of the building, the car parking area is proposed to be constructed using the SurePave grassed lawn system. This is described as follows:

“SurePave is a plastic cellular paving grid for reinforcing grass or gravel where a permeable/porous surface is required. The unique design of this system offers excellent ground reinforcement by creating a surface made up by an open cell structure that can be used with either grass or gravel. SurePave pavers are suitable for many applications including trafficked ones in both grass and gravel including car parks, bus parks, walking tracks, emergency access roads, golf course paths, over flow car parking, grass or gravel driveways, farm gateways and tracks and even tree root protection. SurePave offers an attractive, natural looking paving alternative to concrete and asphalt pavements and concrete grass stabilisation products. Hard impermeable surfaces, such as, concrete/tar seal driveways, roads, roofs and footpaths cannot soak up stormwater. SurePave is an ideal solution for soaking up stormwater in many of these applications. Although some wear can occur in the grassed areas due to cars turning into spaces the SurePave system protects roots and grass regrows where worn easily”.

Landscaping proposed on site will significantly enhance the on-site amenity of the dwelling, and retain the heritage characteristics of the site and wider area. The driveway access (one way system) will comprise a sealed surface in the same location as that which has been provided for many years. In this sense there is no change. It is likely that during the day (outside of peak pick up and drop off periods) the only vehicles on site will be the four (4) staff vehicles parked in a stacked arrangement adjacent to the southern boundary. The front visitor parking area between the building and the front boundary is likely to remain vacant for the majority of the day. Noting the SurePave system proposed (which enables grass to grow) this will give the appearance of a grassed lawn area. This is a significant improvement to the front of the site,


May 2016


which has historically been used for informal parking by a number of vehicles associated with the use of the site for residential purposes. The car park to the front of the site will formalise an existing parking outcome has not previously been controlled in any way. This is a positive outcome from a heritage and amenity perspective.

8.3.3 Amenity

From an amenity perspective, car parking to the front of the site will be actively in use during the hours the centre is in operation, however for the remainder of the time the site will be vacant which will enable the existing dwelling to remain visible.

8.3.4 Signage

The application proposes two signs, to enable the childcare centre to be recognisable and identifiable to both clients and visitors. Signage has deliberately been kept to a minimum, and off the façade of the building in recognition of the heritage values promoted within the zone. It cannot be unexpected, that as with any business activity within such a zone that signage is proposed. Sign 1, as detailed on the Application Plans is recessed into the site, and is a 2.50m² pole type sign. This is the primary sign associated with the activity, and faces Victoria Road. The sign is located so as to not obscure sight lines and will be in close proximity to the adjacent commercial building wall, so as not to impinge on amenity values or create visual clutter. It is proposed to landscape beneath the sign in due course, to create an attractive setting, noting the final details of the sign (in terms of lettering, colouring and message) are proposed to be provided in due course to the satisfaction of the Team Pleader – Resource Consents. This allows the applicant time to confirm exact details post a decision on the resource consent application. Such an approach is not uncommon. Sign 2 is more conventional and compliant, located on the front fence identifying the childcare centre in a discrete manner. The sign will be small (0.50m²) and in keeping with the expectations for the zone. Again, details of the sign will be provided for approval to the satisfaction of the Team Pleader – Resource Consents. From an amenity perspective, noting the commercial premise to the north, it is clear there are a number of existing signs and advertising banners within close proximity to the site, so additional signage is not uncommon or unexpected within the immediate location. All signage will be professionally made, and of a high standard. Neither sign will be illuminated or flashing.

8.3.5 Traffic

Parking Demand and Assessment 11 car parks are to be provided including one (1) conveniently located accessible space, with four (4) car parks allocated for the proposed six (6) staff members. It is proposed to provide less staff car parking than the full District Plan requirement in recognition that the site sites within an established residential area, on a frequent public transport route, and the childcare centre operator can effectively manage staff traffic & movement patterns in a manner that will minimise any potential effects created as a result of the car parking shortfall. Traffic and parking matters are discussed in detail in the ITA annexed as Appendix 6, however this related to the original proposal for 60 children which has since been scaled back to 50. A review of the ITA and the entire proposal was also undertaken by TEAM Traffic, and this assessment is proposed as Appendix 6A within this Revised AEE. Councils Traffic Planner provided clarification on several matters as part of the Section 92 Request for Further


May 2016


Information. All these matters have been answered within Appendix 6A, with the information provided to Councils Traffic Planner for review. In relation to parking demand and usage, the following updated summary is provided by TEAM Traffic:

The NZTPD publication contains a section relating to parking rates per child for childcare centres. This provides a comparison between centres to assist in the evaluation. The table below gives an indicative rate for these facilities.

Measure Parking Rate (spaces/child) Minimum 0.04

Lower Quartile 0.11

Average 0.15

Upper Quartile 0.19

85th Percentile 0.24

Maximum 0.33

This facility is providing 11 car parks which works out at one parking space for every 4.55 children or (0.22) spaces per child. The centre is situated above the upper quartile measure. The 85th percentile rate is generally accepted as the desirable parking demand that should be provided for smaller childcare centres. At this level the requirement for parking would be 12 spaces. The parking demand rate reduces as the size of the centre increase and this is supported by the New Zealand Trips and Parking Database (NZTPD). This particular childcare centre is in the medium size range and it could be expected that the parking demand would be slightly lower than the 85th percentile level and it is estimated to lie between the upper quartile and the 85th percentile levels. The reduction in the number of children places this centre at that level which is deemed appropriate. There is still a technical shortfall of two car parking spaces however this is considered acceptable given that there is on street parking available within easy walking distance of the centre. This fact is confirmed by the parking survey that was undertaken on the 16 February 2016. At any time during the peak periods there are between 14 and 24 car parking spaces available on the road with in a minutes’ walk of the site. It is not considered desirable for parents to park on the road to drop off children on an arterial road. To reduce the possibility of this occurring the mobility space and the six spaces facing the building will be dedicated for parents dropping off children. Normally only five spaces would be required for this purpose to satisfy Councils requirements however we believe it is essential that parents are provided with more than adequate drop off areas in this area to avoid potential conflicts. Therefor the four car parks remaining on site that will be dedicated to staff. Any additional staff will be required to park on the local road network with the other commuter parking. Staff will also be encouraged to use alternative forms of transport and as a local centre it is anticipated that at least one or two staff would arrive by public transport or means other than by car. The area is reasonably well serviced by buses and a ferry as well as having a shared path directly outside of the property. Cyclists and pedestrians have ample opportunities in the area and the surveys clearly demonstrate that a reasonable number of cyclists utilise the facilities although the majority of commuter cyclists use the carriageway.

Bus Stop Location There are bus stops located on both sides of the road directly outside of the site and there is a tapered flush median area that provides separation for the right turning vehicles into Ewen Alison Avenue. Appendix 6A assessed the implications of the bus stop location on the proposed operation of the childcare centre and confirmed:


May 2016


The video survey recorded each bus that stopped in the bus stops during the peak periods. In the morning peak there were 12 buses recorded heading north and 12 buses heading south during the two hours of the peaks. During the morning northbound peak 10 buses stopped at the bus stop outside of the centre for an average of 20 seconds. In the southbound on the opposite side of the road direction 2 buses stopped for an average of 20 seconds. During the evening peak two hours there were 12 buses heading south to the ferry terminal and 17 buses heading north away from the terminal. Of these buses six stopped outside of the centre and stayed on average for less than 20 seconds. In addition, there were 10 buses that stopped on the opposite side of the road for on average about 20 seconds. In this instance a vehicle turning right into the proposed centre is likely to have 5 buses per hour sitting in the bus stop blocking access for approximately 20 seconds on each occasion. In addition there are expected to be 1 bus per hour stopped on the opposite side of the road for 20 seconds each.

Loading Bay The premise provides no designated loading bay, as this is deemed to be an inefficient use of a parking space on site, and as deliveries can be arranged to occur outside of peak periods the effects of this non-provision are minimal. Appendix 6A provides comment as follows:

“Loading and unloading by medium sized trucks can occur within the onsite car-park although the entrance and exit are one way. The drop off carparks facing the building would also need to be vacant to allow manoeuvring for a truck. These activities are expected to be infrequent and potentially confined to the delivery of furniture etc, and can easily be scheduled to occur outside the peak drop-off and pick-up times of the childcare. Other smaller deliveries, such as those by courier van will also be infrequent and will be able to use available spaces in the designated car park for loading purposes. Without any designated loading space being provided the proposal is not strictly compliant with the District Plan’s loading criteria. Despite this, the absence of a loading space is not expected to create any operational problems for the proposed use. It is expected that rubbish servicing will occur via the on-street council collection with the use of wheelie bins”.

The effects of this are minimal, noting this is a common arrangement with childcare centres. Traffic Conclusion Overall, it is deemed that the traffic impacts of the childcare centre can be accommodated both on site and by the surrounding movement network without compromising its function, capacity or safety. As such, based on the findings contained within the ITA and the TEAM Traffic review it is considered that any adverse effects associated from the proposal in regards to traffic, parking, pedestrian safety & other traffic matters will be less than minor.

8.3.5 Intensity / Hours of Operation

Given the provision for a childcare centre to cater for more than 10 children by way of a Discretionary activity within District Plan, it cannot be unexpected that such activities seek to


May 2016


establish within the zone. The application mitigates the potential for adverse effects to be generated by:

providing a suitable level of car parking;

restricting the days and hours of operation;

constructing acoustic fencing; and

providing appropriate indoor and outdoor areas that provide for the capacity sought. It is noted that childcare centres operating within the hours of 7:00am to 7.00pm Monday through Friday meets the needs of working parents and guardians, and is intended to provide options for parents requiring a full care service. One of the key considerations relating to childcare centres from an intensity and operating hours perspective is that these operating hours will be limited via a condition of consent to those hours specified above. As such there will be no children on site outside of these hours, on public holidays or on weekends which provides adjoining landowners the knowledge that noise levels and activity levels will comply at all times when most residents will usually be home.

8.3.6 Silt and Sedimentation

Site works are required in order to construct the rear building platform, access and parking areas, along with the required outdoor play areas. Given the nature of the site, these works are considered necessary, with the site works considered to be minimal, necessary and consistent with the expectations for such development. Upon the completion of site works, all bare land is to be planted in grass and/or landscaped to assist in site stability, mitigate the effects of stormwater run-off, and improve the overall aesthetics of the site. Prior to construction, and as a condition of consent, appropriate silt and sediment control measures will be implemented in accordance with the Councils Technical Publication 90 – Erosion & Sediment Control – Guidelines for Land Disturbing Activities in the Auckland Region (TP90). These measures will remain in place until works are complete. Therefore, we consider that any potential adverse effects generated by site works will be contained on site, and any adverse effects in this regard are considered to be less than minor.

8.3.7 Construction Effects

There may be some short term construction effects, however, these effects can be controlled with the imposition of suitable conditions of consent regarding site management, including restrictions on the hours of operation and maximum noise levels. Construction effects are not anticipated to be noticeably different to those which could reasonably be expected to occur during the construction of a new residential building on site. Given the above, the impact of the construction works is considered to be less than minor.

8.3.8 Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Effects

As the site is highly modified, there are no known archaeological sites, historic places or objects or items of significance to Tangata Whenua on the site. Furthermore, neither the District Plan (other than the blanket heritage protection afforded to the Residential 3 zone) nor the New Zealand Historic Places Register identifies any items of significance on site. Notwithstanding this, during works, if any items are uncovered, the relevant authorities (i.e. Auckland Council and NZHPT), and iwi (if necessary) will be notified.


May 2016


Broad heritage values associated with the zone will be protected by ensuring limited modifications are made to the front façade of the existing dwelling, whilst the proposed additions to the rear are complementary in terms of materials, form and character, whilst still providing sufficient variation (the rear addition) to enable the addition to be identified. This is a key feature of heritage planning, ensuring that later additions are compatible with the existing buildings, however do not attempt to replicate its form and architectural features in their entirety. In this regard an Assessment of Heritage Effects has been prepared by Mr. Graeme Burgess of Burgess and Treep Architects. The assessment states:

The proposal respects the qualities and character of the existing house on the property. The proposed additions and alterations are largely at the back of the existing building and the largest element is set behind and below the house, separated by the linking element. The proposed works will not effect the streetscape appearance of the building and will have little if any effect on the overall streetscape appearance of the neighbourhood. The proposal will improve the streetscape appearance of the house through the removal of the existing unsympathetic side addition. The proposal will not effect the neighbouring scheduled buildings.

From a heritage perspective, the proposal results in positive changes to the existing building. Heritage New Zealand Nomination It is noted a resident on the opposite side of Victoria Road has attempted to have the property listed by the Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) without the applicant’s knowledge, a tactic we can only assume is to try and delay the consideration of this consent application. It is noted the nomination makes frequent reference to the proposed childcare centre and includes several inaccuracies. Discussions with HNZ have confirmed the proposed nomination will not affect Councils ability to determine the consent application on its merits as currently proposed, as there is a formal and prolonged process and assessment period to follow as part of any accepted nomination. This will also include discussions with the current property owner and applicant. At time of writing:

“it looks unlikely that it will be prioritised for inclusion in our Workplan for 2016-17. Please note that all accepted nominations that are not progressed in 2016-17 will be considered again next year for inclusion in the 2017-18 Workplan. Should the nomination be actively considered for a full assessment as part of the Workplan, please also note that standard practices would involve staff informing the owner and seeking his or her opinions on potential listing”.

The above are comments from Martin Jones, Heritage Advisor Registration, Northern Region. There are no impacts as a result of the proposed nomination on this current land use consent application.

8.3.9 Servicing & Stormwater Management

Chester Consultants have undertaken an assessment of the site from an infrastructure servicing perspective. Their Infrastructure Report is attached as Appendix 7. The report provides the following confirmation in relation to servicing:

WASTEWATER o In our opinion the site is suitable for the proposed development in relation to

wastewater.


May 2016


o There is an existing wastewater connection for the house which shall be utilised for the childcare facilities.

WATER SUPPLY o A potable water supply is available in the Victoria Road Reserve; existing water

connection can be utilised for the new childcare facility. o The water supply could be upgraded to accommodate for the new childcare facilities if

required as a 150mm watermain is available outside the property.

FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES o We believe the water supply classification for fire-fighting to be FW2. o A fire hydrant is available in the Road Reserve directly outside the property and shall

service the site for firefighting requirements. o No flow test have been undertaken, however, we note that the site is located

immediately below the Reservoir plus a 150mm waterman is available within the Road Reserve. Therefore, we assume main pressure and flow to be sufficient for firefighting requirement.

The Stormwater Disposal Report has been updated since the application was first lodged with Council, to include additional details on the proposed stormwater mitigation measures. In this regard I can advise Chester Consultants have advised:

In our opinion the proposed stormwater disposal measures satisfy the Auckland Council requirement for stormwater disposal in accordance with the Auckland City Council Soakage Design Manual providing the recommendations contained within this report are followed.

2 x 3000L water tanks are installed, with a 28mm orifice. This will be used to capture discharge from the existing roof area and will discharge to a kerb outlet.

Discharge the runoff from the proposed roof to the western soakhole.

Discharge the runoff from the northern section of the permeable driveway to the northern soakhole.

Discharge the runoff from the southern section of the permeable driveway to the southern soakhole.

In response to Councils Section 92 letter dated 30-November 2015 it is advised that:

For further information on the paving design and drainage please see the paver section attached in the appendix of the Stormwater Disposal Report. A detention tank has been installed to ensure that the runoff rate flowing to the kerb will be no greater than 2l/s 1000m2. For further information, please refer to Section 5.3 for the detention tank design.

8.4 Summary of Assessment of Environmental Effects

Overall, it is considered that the childcare centre is suitable for the site, and will result in land use outcomes that can reasonably be anticipated within the Residential 3 zone. Overall, with regard to the above assessment, any effects associated with the childcare centre are deemed to be less than minor.


May 2016


9.0 SECTION 104 – CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to:

1. any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and 2. 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 policy statement:

vi. a plan or proposed plan; and 3. any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to

determine the application.

9.1 Section 104 (1) (A)

As detailed within Part 7.3 of this AEE, the actual or potential effects on the environment are assessed as being less than minor, and can be adequately mitigated via the imposition of consent conditions to ensure a further reduction in any perceived effects.

9.2 Section 104 (1) (B)

The Act requires the consent authority to consider the potential effects of the childcare centre against any relevant Plan or Proposed Plan. In this instance, this relates to both the District Plan and the Proposed Plan.

9.3 Objectives and Policies – District Plan

9.3.1 Part 8.3.5 – Stormwater Catchment Management

Objective: On-site Stormwater Management To manage stormwater runoff from impervious areas on-site to protect and enhance the ecological, recreational and amenity values of waterways throughout the city and to promote a high quality urban environment. Policies

2. By managing the effects of stormwater runoff within Stormwater Management Areas (SMA), as outlined in Table 8.1 below, reflecting the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the ecological, and amenity values of streams, and potential for stream bank erosion and flooding.

7. By limiting impervious areas in residential areas to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on urban amenity, ensuring that on each site there is opportunity for green space comprising lawns, soft landscaping and vegetation, which at the same time provides pervious area of value to the natural hydrological cycle.

8. By limiting impervious area on a site and implementing appropriate on-site stormwater management, even where spare capacity in the piped stormwater network exists

COMMENT Chester Consultants have provided a Stormwater Disposal Report (Appendix 8) which recommends appropriate disposal methods, noting the available capacity of the existing stormwater network. It is proposed to undertake the following:

2 x 3000L water tanks are installed, with a 28mm orifice. This will be used to capture discharge from the existing roof area and will discharge to a kerb outlet.

Discharge the runoff from the proposed roof to the western soakhole.

Discharge the runoff from the northern section of the permeable driveway to the northern soakhole.


May 2016


Discharge the runoff from the southern section of the permeable driveway to the southern soakhole.

. Full details are contained within Appendix 8, however it is noted the parking and manoeuvring areas will utilise permeable pavers, to self-mitigate and reduce the load on the existing stormwater network. It is expected in time, should approval be granted, that this will be reflected by way of a condition of approval.

9.3.2 Part 9.3.1 – Protection of the Environment

Objective To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of subdivision and development on the environment, including the physical environment, biota, amenity values and landscape. Policies

2. By ensuring that soil/sediment run-off resulting from vegetation clearance and earthworks is controlled in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on amenity and habitat.

3. By ensuring that new subdivision and development recognises existing natural features and landscapes, such as waterways and that the form of development reflects the character and environmental qualities of the location.

4. By ensuring that new subdivision and development recognises, and is compatible with, the character and amenity values of existing development.

COMMENT The applicant has submitted a Site Management Plan within the Application Plans (Appendix 3) to reduce the effects of sedimentation generated by site disturbance. The measures identified, being primarily silt fencing and stabilised construction entrances, are adequate in preventing sediment runoff from the site. Mitigation measures have been designed in accordance with a best engineering practice and as such the childcare centre aligns with the objectives and policies for site works and the protection of the environment, as prescribed by the District Plan.

9.3.3 Part 9.3.3 – Servicing Development

Objective To ensure that servicing of new development is planned and implemented in an efficient manner such as to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental effects. Policies

4. By requiring the provision of water to, and the disposal of sewage and stormwater from, each lot in a subdivision in a manner and design approved by the Council.

5. By enabling, where appropriate, the provision of alternative means of stormwater and sewage disposal.

COMMENT From a servicing perspective, Chester Consultants have provided an Infrastructure Report (Appendix 7), and a Stormwater Disposal Report (Appendix 8) to ensure the effects of both servicing and an increase in stormwater runoff can be contained and effectively mitigated. Noting the above, and the expert comment provided within the two Appendices, the childcare centre aligns with the objectives and policies for servicing, as prescribed by the District Plan.

9.3.4 Part 10.3.2 – Noise

Objective To protect from excessive and unreasonable noise levels, the health and well-being of the community and the enjoyment of residential, recreation and other locations of high amenity value.


May 2016


Policies 1. By setting noise performance standards which reflect existing ambient noise levels, protect

existing residential, recreation and other amenity locations of high amenity value and enable the establishment of less noise sensitive activities in specified locations.

3. By identifying and mitigating the potential adverse effects of excessive or unreasonable noise levels at the design and consent stage of developments or activities at risk from excessive or unreasonable noise.

4. By ensuring that consideration is given to appropriate avoidance and mitigation techniques and, where possible, achieving compliance with noise controls by managing noise at the point of emission in preference to providing defensive infrastructure against noise intrusion.

COMMENT From a noise perspective, the Acoustic Report prepared has confirmed exceedance of permitted noise thresholds as specified within the District Plan on the property at 3 Ewen Alison Avenue only, as this reaches 53-decibles. The Acoustic Report states:

Children are a common source of noise in urban areas. The area is predominantly residentially zoned. In accordance with Section 16 of the District Plan, childcare centres for more than 10 children are allowed for within the residential zone as a discretionary activity. The referenced District Plan noise controls will be complied with at all sites, with the exception of 3 Ewen Alison Avenue. This site is more exposed to the noise due to its proximity to the outdoor play area for the older children. For this site we recommend that a day time noise limit of 55 dB LA10 is appropriate and will be complied with. It is well recognised that noise levels higher than what the District Plan prescribes for permitted activities are acceptable to the community provided that the noise level, frequency (incidence), timing and duration is properly managed. Allowing childcare centres to generate noise levels of up to 55 dB LA10 during the day in residential areas is certainly not without precedent in New Zealand. Numerous childcare centres in Auckland presently operate on this basis, subject to appropriate resource consent conditions. The allowance for noise levels above the District Plan permitted activity criteria in residential areas can be considered on a continuum, where activities that comply with the daytime noise criteria could potentially occur for extended periods on all days, if noise was the only appreciable effect generated. On the other hand, if the activity were to generate a noise level of 55 dB LA10 then it may be acceptable providing the duration is limited and the periods of higher noise are interspersed with periods of little or no noise to allow some respite for the receivers. In this proposal, the periods of higher noise are limited to times when the children are at free play outdoors. This occurs for up to 6 hours per day, generally between the hours of 08:00 and 16:00, Monday to Friday. The only other appreciable noise from the operation of the childcare centre will be vehicles manoeuvring within the parking lot during the morning and afternoon periods when the children are dropped-off and collected by parents and caregivers. There will be no noise from the site outside the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 on weekdays or on public holidays. This important mitigating factor must be considered when weighing up the overall noise effects and determining whether the noise level is reasonable or otherwise. The New Zealand Standard NZS 6802:1991 Section 4.2.2 sets out guidelines for desirable upper limits of exposure to environmental noise for the protection of community health and amenity. For daytime noise exposure at or within the boundary of any residential land use, the Standard recommends an upper noise limit of 55 dB LA10. The proposed noise limit for 3 Ewen Alison Avenue is compliant with the recommendations of NZS 6802:1991. The existing noise environment is controlled by road traffic. Measurements demonstrate noise levels at the neighbouring sites on Victoria Road of up to 63 dB LA10 and 50 dB LA95 during the day. The existing road traffic noise at 3 Ewen Alison Avenue will be approximately 10 decibels


May 2016


lower due to the additional separation distance from Victoria Street and partial screening provided by the existing dwellings. However, with the proposed acoustically effective fencing erected on the boundaries of the ECEC, the road traffic noise from public vehicles on Victoria Street being received at 3 Ewen Alison Avenue will be reduced at all times (including evenings, weekends and public holidays when there is no noise at all from the childcare centre). When considering the District Plan zoning and the actual noise levels that will be experienced at the surrounding sites in the context of the existing noise environment, and the limited frequency and duration of the noise it is our assessment that the potential degree of adverse noise effects (in isolation) arising from the proposed activity is less than minor and that the noise emissions will be reasonable in terms of section 16 of the Act.

Noting the above expert comment, and the mitigation measures proposed (acoustic fencing) the assessed noise levels are not deemed to be at a level whereby outcomes contrary to the objectives of the District Plan result.

9.3.5 Part 13.3 – Signs

Objective 1. To ensure that signage does not create a traffic hazard. 2. To ensure that signs do not adversely affect the visual amenity of the surrounding environment.

Policies

1. To require signs to be designed and located so that they do not detrimentally affect traffic safety. 2. To control the adverse effects of signs, having regard to the amenity standards and context of

the particular environment in which they are located, on the basis of the various zones defined in the Plan.

COMMENT The childcare centre seeks to establish two signs on site. Sign 1 is recessed within the site, with Sign 2 proposed on the front fence. The purpose of these signs is to enable the site to be identifiable, without compromising the amenity of the wider environ. Neither sign is located in a position on site that will affect traffic safety, therefore the key consideration relating to their appropriateness is the effects on the amenity of the zone. The site has special heritage and character values, and in response to this, it has been decided that the pole-type sign (Sign 1) should not be located in front of the front façade of the existing dwelling, to ensure the streetscape is not affected by signage. In addition to placing Sign 1 to the side of the existing dwelling, the decision has also been made to ensure that no non-compliant signage is located on the front façade of the actual dwelling, noting that (with the exception of a future nameplate or street address number) this will ensure the character values of the dwelling are retained. Sign 2 is significantly smaller (0.50m²), and is consistent with the expectation of the zone for community facilities and thus needs limited comment in terms of its suitability for the site. Noting the above, the childcare centre aligns with the objectives and policies for signage, as prescribed by the District Plan.

9.3.6 Part 16.3.2 – Residential Activities

Objective To provide opportunities for the establishment of activities required by people and communities in a manner which is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. Policies


May 2016


4. By enabling the establishment of only those non-residential activities which will provide very positive benefits to individuals or local communities (i.e. by serving their daily needs) and which have minimal adverse effects on amenities of the residential area.

5. By limiting the range of activities permitted to establish in those zones with natural or heritage values (Residential 1-3 zones) to those which are compatible with the protection and enhancement of these values.

COMMENT The proposal involves the establishment of a childcare centre, within a residential zone. The District Plan provides seeks to provide opportunities for the establishment of such activities required by people and communities in a manner which is compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. Relevant policies require that those activities which have the potential to have a significant adverse effect upon the environment or on the amenities of adjoining properties or neighbourhood, be the subject of a resource consent, noting it is considered appropriate that the establishment of only those non-residential activities which will provide very positive benefits to individuals or local communities (i.e. by serving their daily needs) are deemed appropriate. Childcare centres clearly create wide community benefits in terms of providing an essential service and strengthening social connections between families. Therefore it is considered that this type of use is appropriate at the proposed location, and will provide a useful transition between the more traditional adjoining commercial uses (located at 161 Victoria Road), and the surrounding residential housing stock. The complementary site design, considered site layout, and subsequent assessment of actual and potential effects (refer to Part 7.3 of this AEE) will result in the maintenance of amenity values within the surrounding area. Therefore, the childcare centre aligns with the objectives and policies for non-residential activities, as prescribed by the District Plan.

9.3.7 Part 16.3.3 – Development Controls

Objective To control the form of development in order to achieve good standards of on-site and neighbourhood amenity, including the protection of the character of the streetscape.

Policies

1. By requiring compliance with controls designed to maintain on-site and inter-site amenity values. 5. By controlling the height and bulk of buildings in relation to property boundaries

COMMENT The proposed rear building addition has been undertaken in a manner consistent with the heritage recommendations contained within Appendix 10. The building and rear extension complies most development controls as they relate to the zone, with the previous HiRB infringement redesigned to ensure compliance with the corresponding rule.i

9.3.8 Part 16.4.3 – Residential 3 Zone: Built Heritage

Objective To ensure that the historic and architectural character and the landscape, topographical and built context of certain distinctive areas of North Shore City is protected and retained.

Policies

1. By ensuring that development and change within the built heritage zones of Devonport, Birkenhead and Northcote retains and reflects those features, qualities and attributes that


May 2016


contribute to the historic character and amenity, such as the subdivision pattern (as reflected in the subzones), density, built form and original fabric, location on the site, visual relationship with the street and use of materials.

2. By allowing only those activities which are compatible with the historic character and amenity, with limited scope for other activities where this is necessary to preserve the historic and architectural character of the building.

5. By controlling alterations and new building work to maintain the historic character and general amenity of the zones, and by preventing discordant development.

6. By requiring car parking and garaging to be provided in a manner that does not detract from the historic character or amenity of the zones, by locating it if possible at the rear of existing houses, and restricting the construction of associated structures to those that maintain views to the subject house from the street and any public place beyond the site. This will avoid adverse effects on the streetscape, and allow the house to remain the dominant built element on the site.

COMMENT The District Plan describes areas which are zoned Residential 3A as areas of smaller lot sizes, compact street patterns and houses near the street. The site varies from this more generalised description of the zone, however the heritage protection afforded to the site and building itself is appropriate. Additions proposed are to the rear of the existing dwelling, preserving the critical front building façade. Although the focus of the Residential 3 zone is on the retention and enhancement of built heritage and streetscape values reflect community aspirations and the historic value of heritage buildings, the location of the site within close proximity to the Devonport commercial core means the site is appropriate for facilitating a childcare centre, due to the compatible nature of this activity and the community benefit that it creates. In relation to the above, the Assessment of Heritage Effects (Appendix 10) confirms the proposed rear extension and modifications to the front of the site are acceptable in relation to the expectations for the zone. Car parking is proposed to the front of the dwelling, as there is no realistic alternative location on site. The car parking area will include landscaping where possible, to soften the front of the site, and will utilise permeable paving which reduces stormwater run-off and again contributes to a softer feel to the site. During periods the childcare centre is closed, unrestricted views towards the front of the dwelling will be provided. No garaging is proposed to the front of the site, increasing the visibility of the dwelling when viewed from the streetscape, compensating for the increased car parking area, however as this does not result in additional built structures in the form of garaging, the intent of the assessment criteria above is maintained. Overall, the development aligns with the built heritage objectives and policies included in the District Plan.

9.4 Assessment Criteria – District Plan

9.4.1 Stormwater Management

8.4.8.8.3 Discretionary Activities Without restricting the exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse consent or impose conditions, the Council shall assess applications for Discretionary Activities against the following:

a) The Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities in 8.4.8.8.1 and Limited Discretionary Activities in 8.4.8.8.2.

b) The effects of additional stormwater runoff downstream of the site on other properties and on the stream network.


May 2016


c) The extent to which the proposal will assist with managing stormwater in an integrated manner, across the relevant catchment.

d) Whether there are options to manage the additional stormwater runoff, off-site.

COMMENT Chester Consultants have prepared a comprehensive stormwater drainage system for the site, noting known constraints. These are as follows: The proposed measures for stormwater mitigation are as follows:

The new extension at the western end of the site will be diverted to a soakage pit at the western end of the site.

Permeable paving will be used for the paved area on the site, the permeable pavers will be diverted to two soakage pits at the northern and southern ends of the site.

Stormwater will be diverted from the existing house roof to the kerb (requiring no attenuation) as per the pre application meeting.

In total there will be three soakage pits installed. The stormwater mitigation measures are detailed in the site plan C01 by Chester Consultants in the appendix. The soakage pits have been designed in accordance with the Auckland Council Soakage Deign Manual. Also refer to the attached worksheets W1, W3 & W8 in the appendix which detail the calculations for each of the three soakage pits.

The above recommendations will ensure appropriate stormwater mitigation and disposal for the development consistent with the relevant assessment criteria.

9.4.2 Site Works

9.7.2 Limited Discretionary Activities The Council shall assess applications for limited discretionary site works and subdivision activities against the following: 9.7.2.1 General Assessment Criteria The General Assessment Criteria for Controlled activities listed in Rule 9.7.1.1. 9.7.1.1 General Assessment Criteria The Council shall assess applications for controlled site works and subdivision activities against the following: 1. The Design and Implementation of Site Works The extent to which site works, their design, location and execution:

a) Employ adequate and effective techniques or measures to capture and retain any sediment generated through site works and/or associated earthworks and prevent the passage of sediment over land, and/or entry of sediment into water systems, whether naturally occurring or otherwise.

b) Appropriately minimise site disturbance and vegetation clearance.

COMMENT Refer to comment in Part 9.3.2 of this AEE above. 5. Utility Services, Drainage, Water, Wastewater, Electricity, Roads

c) The extent to which the design of stormwater systems is in accordance with Rule 8.4.8 for on-site stormwater management and:

i. Avoids water pooling around building foundations, flood damage, and the inundation of buildings.

ii. Provides for overland flow paths.


May 2016


iii. Is in accord with the provisions of a Stormwater Catchment Management Plan that has been prepared for the area.

iv. Avoids the likelihood of leakage, root penetration and infiltration of groundwater. v. Incorporates features to provide stormwater attenuation, remove contaminants from

stormwater runoff and avoid damage to natural waterways and reduce erosion. vi. For sites which are unserviced, ensures that there is no increase in stormwater run-off (for

example through the use of storage tanks to enable rainwater re-use on-site). vii. Incorporates the use of natural areas and vegetation in stormwater detention, (including

enhancing existing vegetation to improve stormwater quality and to protect or enhance affected aquatic ecosystems. This may also include, where appropriate, redirection of stormwater to natural areas).

viii. Are designed in such a way as to minimise the amount of impervious surfaces.

COMMENT Refer to comment in Part 9.3.3 of this AEE above in relation to infrastructure and servicing requirements for the site. Full details of the above is contained within Appendix 8. 6. Protection of Vegetation and Heritage Features The extent to which site works and/or subdivision reduce the features’ visibility, presence or integrity by establishing, undermining, covering, masking or obscuring, demolishing or removing parts, elements or components of the feature.

COMMENT The site contains no protected vegetation, noting the majority of this was previously removed. As stated previously, the small pohutukawa hedge along the front boundary of the site has been removed to improve visibility for entering and exiting the site, and it is likely this would have been removed regardless of the outcome of any childcare centre for traffic safety purposes. The large poplar tree, located along the southern elevation of the dwelling was required to be removed as it was assessed as being unstable in high winds given stabilising roots were cut during re-piling of the existing dwelling. Heritage features of the existing dwelling will be retained, noting its conversion and reuse ensures its ongoing protection and retention into the foreseeable future. Redevelopment of the site, to enable childcare activities is considered to be an appropriate conversion and use of the existing dwelling, noting these are increasingly common land use activities within residential zones. The key heritage features of the site, namely the front façade of the villa are not changing noticeably as a result of this application and therefore, the key heritage features of the site are retained.

9.4.3 Noise

10.8.6.2 Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities Without restricting the exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse consent or impose conditions, the Council will have regard to the assessment criteria set out below when considering an application under Sections 104 and 105 of the RMA:

a) That the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate that the matters relating to risk and site management required by Section 10.8.4 can be achieved.

b) That appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures are proposed for the activity.

COMMENT Refer to comments in Part 9.3.4 of this AEE above.


May 2016


9.4.4 Transport

12.5.1 Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Applications 12.5.1.2 Additional Assessment Criteria for Control Flexibility a) Reduction in Parking Spaces: General Where the proposal fails to comply with the parking and loading space standards in Rule 12.4.2.1 to Rule 12.4.2.2, an application for consent to provide fewer or no spaces will be considered. This will be assessed against the following:

Whether the site is located within the Business 11 zone and a traffic report prepared by a suitably qualified person demonstrates that the specific proposal for retail activity with a floor area greater than 500 m2 will generate a lower parking demand than the District Plan standard.

Whether the required parking on the site can be practicably provided with regard to the existing location of buildings, availability of access to the road and other similar matters

Whether a demonstrably lower than normal incidence of parking will be generated by the proposal, e.g. due to specific business practice, operating method or type of customer

Whether the applicant can demonstrate that a significant number of the customers or users of the proposed activity are transported to the site by bus or van. The substitution of sheltered bus stops or bus parking spaces for a number of car parking spaces may be accepted where this travel occurs. Such bus parking spaces are to be of a standard acceptable to the Council

Whether the site is located in a Residential zone (including the Long Bay 1-4 zones), Coastal Conservation Area, Business Policy Overlay B1, or on a Heritage site and the provision of full car parking would detrimentally affect the specific character and features of the area or site

g) Design of Parking and Loading Spaces An application to provide an alternative design of parking and loading spaces or a lesser number of loading spaces will be assessed against the following:

The general assessment criteria listed in Section 12.5.1. The extent to which users of the site will be adversely affected

The ability of vehicles to manoeuvre on-site without undue difficulty

The ability of the parking and loading spaces provided should be adequate to serve existing and future users of the site

The safe and easy movement of vehicles on the site.

COMMENT The inability to meet the required parking standards, and loading space standards, can be considered by unrestricted control flexibility under the corresponding rule. The proposal seeks a reduction in onsite car parking of 4 spaces, however there is public parking along both sides of Victoria Road adjacent to the site which can be utilised by parents or caregivers to drop off and pick up children should this be needed (noting the District Plan generally seeks to prevent relying on such arrangements). Notwithstanding this, this arrangement was discussed at the Pre-Application Meeting, and was deemed an acceptable arrangement given the short nature of these trips means that any impact on the road network can be avoided, and public parking will remain available for other road users. As such, the general character of traffic movements within the area can be maintained. While there is no dedicated loading space provided on site, deliveries to the site will be infrequent and quick stop, usually by way of a van or other small courier vehicle and can be arranged to occur outside of the drop off and pick up times for children. This is a common arrangement, and one that is operating successfully across Auckland on numerous childcare centres without undue complication.


May 2016


The ITA (Appendix 6) confirms that the parking, manoeuvring and access arrangements will operate satisfactorily (refer to Part 8.3.4 of this AEE) on site, and that the non-provision of a dedicated loading bay is unlikely to generate any adverse effects on the site, users of the site or the wider environ. It is specifically noted the reasons for supporting the application are that:

Parking Shortfall The required parking on the site cannot be practicably provided with regards to the existing location of the building. There are two (2) bus stops directly in front of the site. The site is located in a Residential zone and the provision of full car parking would affect the specific character and features of the area. Although the proposal has a shortage of parking, the effect of the non-compliance is thought to be minor as the proposed number of parking spaces complies with the rules under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Under Rule 3.2 Number of parking and loading spaces, care centres are required to provide 0.10 parking spaces per child plus 0.5 per FTE employee. With this rule a total of 10 spaces are required (excluding accessible spaces), thus the proposal will become compliant under the PAUP. Furthermore, staff are likely to arrive to the site before 7am or at midday to suit the sessional times, thus they are separated from the peak period. Also, the staff that are unable to find a staff parking space will park on the surrounding road. In addition, the staff will be encouraged to car pool and use alternative modes, as there are bus services and stops directly outside the property and segregated cycle lanes on both sides of the road. Loading Bay Shortfall Any loading activities required by the childcare centre will be arranged to occur outside of the peak drop-off/pick-up periods. This enables efficient usage of the four visitor car parking spaces proposed, as the visitor spaces are expected to be vacant at off-peak periods. The RTA guidelines for parking demand found that the average length of stay for all centres came to 6.8 minutes. The turnover of parking is relatively fast and thus the proposed car parking spaces will be used similarly to a car loading space. There is a queuing space of at least 13.4m between the ‘ingress’ and ‘egress’ of the site. This length is sufficient to accommodate two to three vehicles and thus even in the most critical state, the shortage of the three car loading spaces will not affect the frontage road (Victoria Road).

This approach, the shared use of a loading bay associated with the operation of childcare centres is a common practice, noting the use cannot justify a full dedicated loading bay, as this is shown to be an inefficient and excessive use of space, which is better allocated for on-site car parking which can double as a loading bay as and when required. Deliveries to the site are typically arranged to be undertaken outside peak drop-off and pick-up periods, ensuring no noticeable on-site conflict or operational effects are likely. Additional comment and review has also been provided within Appendix 6A, with this confirming the effects of traffic on the wider environment are acceptable. Specific comment was also provided in response to Councils Section 92 Letter of November 2015.

9.4.5 Residential

16.7.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities a) Design of Access Vehicular and pedestrian access to, from, and within the site must be:


May 2016


ii. Located and designed so as to protect the aural privacy of adjacent sites. iii. Designed to maximise safety and convenience to users of the site.

b) Parking

i. Every activity should comply with the Plan’s parking and access controls in Rule 12.4 Transportation Rules, unless it can be demonstrated that in relation to a particular proposal, an alternative standard is appropriate.

iii. Groups of three or more required car parking spaces should be located and designed so as to minimise the impact on adjacent properties by the provision of adequate separation distances, landscaping and fencing.

iv. Large groups of parking spaces, especially those in front of a building, should be avoided due to their impact on the visual and aural amenities, unless these effects can be adequately mitigated by separation distances, landscaping and screening.

c) Traffic Safety

i. The proposal should not significantly detract from traffic safety or efficiency having regard to the volume of traffic attracted, times of peak generation, potential traffic conflict and proximity to major traffic intersections.

ii. Where it is proposed to establish an activity which has the potential to attract significant volumes of traffic with direct access to an arterial road identified on Appendix 1 to the District Plan Maps, the applicant must satisfy the Council that the proposal will not significantly adversely affect traffic safety or efficiency.

d) Landscaping and Open Space The site should be landscaped in a manner which will ensure that:

i. The effects of the proposal are internalised to the site and, in particular, will not significantly detract from the amenities of the adjoining road or adjacent residential

ii. The character and appearance of the site is compatible with the neighbouring area. iii. An attractive environment is created for the occupants of the site. In order to achieve this:

In order to achieve this:

A minimum of 30% of every site should be landscaped. On-going maintenance should be provided to ensure that the quality of the landscaping is retained.

Wherever practical, existing trees and bush should be retained and incorporated into landscaping.

Landscaping and fencing should be designed to reduce any significant adverse effects of the proposed activity and its associated building(s), parking and access on the amenities of the street and adjoining properties, including the provision of trees which will grow to a similar height as the building. A landscaped front yard similar to those of other residential properties in the vicinity is of particular significance.

In the case of the following prescribed activities, the development should include an area/areas of open space available for the use and enjoyment of residents and visitors which is sited and designed to provide a good standard of amenity. The size of the open space shall reflect the needs of the occupants and the scale of the development:

- Childcare

The area of open space shall be located and designed so as to minimise any detraction from the amenities of adjacent sites, by appropriate landscaping and separation distances.

e) Building Design and Site Layout Proposals should be designed so as to ensure that there is no significant detraction from the amenities of adjoining sites or the neighbourhood as a whole. The following matters are of particular significance:

i. The maintenance of an appropriate level of visual and aural privacy on neighbouring sites by such factors as building design and layout, landscaping, screening and appropriate separation distances from boundaries to buildings, outdoor activity areas, car parking and manoeuvring, particularly on smaller sites of less than 500 sqm in area.


May 2016


iii. The maintenance of sunlight and daylight access to neighbouring sites. v. The character and appearance of buildings used for non-residential purposes should be

compatible with the neighbouring area having regard to matters such as scale, design and finishing materials.

f) Streetscape and Neighbourhood Character and Amenity The criteria in 16.7.3.4 (a) shall apply where applicable. g) Intensity and Scale

i. The intensity and scale of the proposal, in particular the number of people involved in the activity, traffic generation, hours of use, size of building and associated parking, signs, noise and other generated effects should be compatible with the character and amenities of the surrounding area having regard to the objectives and policies of the zone, and its Permitted, Controlled and Discretionary activities. Those activities which generate large volumes of traffic, such as travellers’ accommodation and community buildings and facilities, should generally not be located on a minor road and should have ready access to principal roads in order to avoid heavy traffic volumes on minor roads. The Council may impose conditions to minimise the impact of the activity on the neighbouring area.

h) Infrastructure

i. The Council must be satisfied that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of sewage and stormwater, having particular regard to:

The capacity of those systems to accommodate the anticipated additional flows arising from the development; and

The need to remove (or pre-treat) contaminants from runoff, avoid damage to natural waterways and reduce downstream erosion; having particular regard to the need to maintain the quality of water.

iii. The General Assessment Criteria for Controlled activities listed in 9.7.1.1(5). i) Environment

i. In all residential areas, development should be designed to minimise any adverse effects on the environment.

iii. Consent will be refused to those Discretionary activities which could have a significant adverse effect on environmental values.

In addition the following matters shall be considered:

The extent to which existing vegetation and landforms are retained and landscaping adds to the amenity of the development and assists in stormwater management;

Excavations and retaining walls/structures beyond that permitted by this plan should generally be incorporated within the building footprint;

Low impact stormwater design methods including source control should be incorporated into the site, building and landscaping design;

j) Location Criteria Relating to Front Sites Those Discretionary activities which have the potential to attract significant volumes of traffic should be located on front sites, or on a rear site having access of sufficient width to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety, and minimise disruption to adjoining sites. k) Stormwater Management The extent to which the development takes account of the provisions of the relevant comprehensive discharge consent or catchment management plan, and addresses the following issues:

iii. relevant sediment and erosion control measures;

COMMENT

Design of Access


May 2016


Part 5.2 – Access Arrangements within Appendix 6 states that:

The new car park would continue to utilise the existing vehicle access points located on Victoria Road, however with a formalisation of separate ingress and egress points. It is proposed that vehicles will ingress the site via the southern access point and egress the site via the northern access point, as shown in Figure 4.1. Placing the ingress on the southern end provides vehicles entering the site with the best possible view of waiting busses, pedestrians and cyclists before crossing the footpath/cycleway. Similarly, placing the egress on the northern end allows vehicles to queue within the site until approaching vehicles, waiting buses, pedestrians and cyclists have cleared the roadside fronting the site. The semi-open fencing and access arrangements provide relatively good visibility between vehicles entering and existing the site and pedestrians, cyclists and general traffic. Landscaping will be kept clear for 2m either side of both accesses to ensure visibility is not obscured. The existing garage will be replaced with a similar style fence/landscaping.

Noting the above, the proposed access arrangement is considered suitable for the site, given this retains the current one way arrangement. Parking The proposal generates a small shortfall of car parking, as outlined in Appendix 6A. It is confirmed:

The NZTPD publication contains a section relating to parking rates per child for child care centres. This provides a comparison between centres to assist in the evaluation. The table below gives an indicative rate for these facilities.

Measure Parking rate (spaces/child)

Minimum 0.04

Lower Quartile 0.11

Average 0.15

Upper Quartile 0.19

85th Percentile 0.24

Maximum 0.33

This facility is providing 11 car parks which works out at one parking space for every 4.55 children or (0.22) spaces per child. The centre is situated above the upper quartile measure. The 85th percentile rate is generally accepted as the desirable parking demand that should be provided for smaller childcare centres. At this level the requirement for parking would be 12 spaces. The parking demand rate reduces as the size of the centre increase and this is supported by the New Zealand Trips and Parking Database (NZTPD). This particular childcare centre is in the medium size range and it could be expected that the parking demand would be slightly lower than the 85th percentile level and it is estimated to lie between the upper quartile and the 85th percentile levels. The reduction in the number of children places this centre at that level which is deemed appropriate. There is still a technical shortfall of two car parking spaces however this is considered acceptable given that there is on street parking available within easy walking distance of the centre. This fact is confirmed by the parking survey that was undertaken on the 16 February 2016. At any time during the peak periods there are between 14 and 24 car parking spaces available on the road with in a minutes’ walk of the site. It is not considered desirable for parents to park on the road to drop off children on an arterial road. To reduce the possibility of this occurring the mobility space and the six spaces facing the building will be dedicated for parents dropping off children. Normally only five spaces would be


May 2016


required for this purpose to satisfy Councils requirements however we believe it is essential that parents are provided with more than adequate drop off areas in this area to avoid potential conflicts. Therefor the four car parks remaining on site that will be dedicated to staff. Any additional staff will be required to park on the local road network with the other commuter parking. Staff will also be encouraged to use alternative forms of transport and as a local centre it is anticipated that at least one or two staff would arrive by public transport or means other than by car. The area is reasonably well serviced by buses and a ferry as well as having a shared path directly outside of the property. Cyclists and pedestrians have ample opportunities in the area and the surveys clearly demonstrate that a reasonable number of cyclists utilise the facilities although the majority of commuter cyclists use the carriageway.

Traffic Safety Point 5 – Provide a Safety Assessment of the Entry Access Point within Appendix 6A states that:

The request for additional information specifically mentions the issue of “Safe Stopping Sight Distance” for a vehicle following a vehicle turning right into the centre. The Austroad “Guide to Road Design Part 3 Geometric Design” recommends that the safe Stopping sight distance for a car on a sealed road at a speed of 60 kph and with a 2.0 second reaction time is 73 metres. This measurement assumes that a driver must be able to see an object 0.2 metres above the ground level. In this instance the following vehicle is looking at an object that is 1.15metres above the ground or higher as the driver can see the roof of the vehicle in front. On site measurements indicate that the safe stopping sight distance is circa 85 metres. This is further than the recommended minimum distance and therefore considered adequate.

In addition to the above, Appendix 6 states:

A search of the NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) database from the period 2010 to 2014 inclusive identified that one (1) non-injury crash has occurred within 50 metres of the site access points. The single non-injury crash record occurred 20m south of the Victoria Road / Ewen Alison Avenue intersection, where a southbound vehicle on Victoria Road lost control while turning left. The new car park would continue to utilise the existing vehicle access points located on Victoria Road, however with a formalisation of separate ingress and egress points to enhance traffic flow and safety.

Noting the above, few incidences have been recorded, and the proposed access arrangement to the site will continue to promote traffic safety, noting all vehicles can exit the site in a forward direction, with good visibility in either direction contributing to safer outcomes. Landscaping and Open Space Various landscaped areas are provided on site, with formalized planting areas totalling circa 97m² as reflected on the Application Plans. Noting the proposed use of the site, where outdoor play area is required, “planned” planting of these areas cannot be undertaken, notwithstanding they will retain the appearance of a grassed lawn and can be considered to contribute to the overall “green and open” landscaped appearance of the site. Including the outdoor play areas the site provides approximately 458m² of grassed or landscaped outdoor area, equating to 36% of the site. In addition to the above, as previously described, the car parking areas propose to utilise the SurePave grassed lawn system, contributing additional greenspace on site and soften the overall appearance of the site when viewed from the street. As previously stated within this Revised AEE, the site is currently void of any meaningful vegetation, with this having been previously removed for various reasons.


May 2016


The removal of the unprotected pohutukawa hedge was undertaken to improve views of the villa, increase traffic safety and in response to pohutukawa generally being an unsuitable long-term hedging option. Future hedge planting is proposed to be planted adjacent to the front fencing, consisting of Corokia (Genties Green) which will grow to a height of 1.50m. This will mitigate the loss of the previous pohutukawa hedge and is considered to be a far more suitable plant species for such a location. In addition, the large poplar tree located along the southern elevation of the building was removed as it was unstable, having had its roots cut as part of previous re-piling works associated with the dwelling by previous owners. The front façade of the building and the front fencing is not proposed to change as part of this proposal, as the existing picket fence will remain, with future hedging (as described above) being planted as part of the Landscaping Plan obligations. The Landscaping Plan proposes a number of ground level plant species across the site, as well as a number of larger trees / shrubs which will grow between 1.50 – 3.00m in height. Trees have been specifically chosen to ensure they do not obstruct vehicle sightlines, cause nuisance to neighboring properties or the site itself, and provide a high level of on-site amenity in a formal and planned arrangement. Streetscape and Neighbourhood Character and Amenity The childcare centre retains its residential appearance in the foremost with the exception of the car parks and vehicle manoeuvring area located to the front. The remainder of the site activities are located to the rear or side of the site, or alternatively will take place within the building. As is the case with most childcare centres it is noted that the residential area will be busiest on weekdays with regards to traffic movements between the operating hours of 7:00am – 7.00pm Monday to Friday with peaks in the mornings and afternoon/evening. Outside of these hours the childcare centre will be largely vacant and quiet in relation to vehicle movements. The District Plan anticipates for such land use activities to be established in residential areas as they are considered an important and part of the community, best detailed as follows:

“Despite the fact that the generated effects of these activities can be controlled, such activities commonly do have an impact on the character of residential neighbourhoods, for example, the activity may be located in a building which is not of residential character, or it may be empty at night and in the weekend, or it may attract greater volumes of traffic than would a residence. Despite these undesirable impacts, these activities are considered to be appropriate within the residential area because of their community benefits, particularly in terms of easy and convenient access to services”.

It is considered that any noise emitted from the site as a result of the activity will be appropriate for this zone as discussed above in Part 9.3.4 of this AEE. Building Design and Site Layout The site layout is logical, and retains many of the features currently attributed to the existing dwelling. Key considerations which have the potential to affect neighbouring properties include the assessed noise levels (exceeding the 50-decible limit) and the small height in relation to boundary/building coverage infringements located along the southern elevation (generated by the new rear addition). In both cases, the effects generated by these infringements is assessed as being small as detailed earlier within the AEE, as the acoustic expert engaged by the applicant confirms noise


May 2016


levels will remain “reasonable” and therefore is consistent with the intent of the Act, whilst the HiRB and building coverage infringements are small in nature. Intensity and Scale The application mitigates such potential effects associated with the childcare centre by providing: sufficient car parking; restricted days and hours of operation, acoustic fencing; and appropriate indoor and outdoor areas that provide for the capacity of children sought. The intensity and scale of the proposal is measured against the intentions of the District Plan with regards to various operating effects, including noise, traffic generation, heritage, amenity, bulk and location. The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the District Plan. The activity status of the application (as a non-complying activity) is so as a result of there being no control flexibility associated with the noise limits as prescribed within the District Plan and signage non-conformity. As such, and despite the application being a non-complying activity, the effects of this have been assessed and are deemed to be less than minor, as the expert consultant reports have all confirmed the childcare centre is suitable and compatible with the site and immediate environment from an “effects” based perspective. Infrastructure Refer to Appendix 7 for a comprehensive assessment of the proposed infrastructure requirements associated with the proposal. The measures are consistent with the expectations of the corresponding assessment criteria. Environment Key issues for consideration relate to noise generation and stormwater disposal. As previously stated the Acoustic Report (Appendix 4) has detailed the noise generation associated with the childcare centre as being “reasonable”, and further assessment of this aspect of the development is not duplicated within this section of the AEE. Stormwater and servicing matters have been previously addressed within the recommendations of both Appendix 7 and Appendix 8. Overall, it is considered the effects on the environment as a result of this application are less than minor (refer to Part 7.3 of this AEE) and the establishment of a childcare centre, adjoining both a commercial zoned property and residential zoned properties is not uncommon, nor unexpected within the zone. Location Criteria Relating to Front Sites The site is a front site, thus consistent with the corresponding assessment criteria. Stormwater Management Refer to Appendix 8 for a comprehensive assessment of the proposed stormwater mitigation measures associated with the proposal. The measures are consistent with the expectations of the corresponding assessment criteria. 16.7.3.1 Additions or Alterations to the Exterior of Any Existing Building in the Residential 3 Zone All proposals for external additions or alterations to existing buildings will be assessed against criteria (a) - (g) below. Where a proposal for changes to the roof or walls exceeds the limits outlined below, it will also be assessed against criteria (h) - (j) below.

a) The presence of houses built before 1940 is an important component of the historic character in the Residential 3 zone. Any additions and alterations should preserve the essential character including as much original fabric as possible, with street facade changes generally avoided except for minor changes which are entirely in character with the original house, and recovery of


May 2016


original detail based on physical or documentary evidence, or in the absence of this, detail on similar houses in the proximity.

b) Any proposed alterations and/or additions to buildings built before 1940 should retain or reflect the architectural and historic form (including the ridges and geometry of the roof), proportions and style of the building, and other design characteristics of the original building such as design detailing, original fabric, materials, finishes, proportions, and fenestration (window size, proportion and location within walls). Alterations to expand the building within a roof-space shall respect, and leave dominantly visible, the form and lines of the existing roof.

c) The proposal should not adversely affect the contribution the subject building makes to a group of buildings which contribute to the character of the area (streetscape group significance), and should not detract from any continuity of façade alignment of buildings in the street. Particular care shall be exercised where the proposal is adjacent to or in the vicinity of any heritage building(s), structure(s), place(s) or site(s) scheduled in the Appendices to Chapter 11: Cultural Heritage, of the District Plan.

d) The materials of additions and alterations to older houses should be sympathetic to the built heritage of the area and in particular the original house itself – traditional materials such as corrugated steel sheet, timber shingles, timber weatherboards, and timber joinery being considered generally appropriate, especially where these materials match or are very similar to the original materials, and are used in the same manner as those of the subject house. Original fabric should be retained wherever possible.

e) For proposed alterations and/or additions to buildings built after 1940 the design and appearance of the alterations should be compatible with the original building in terms of form, materials and detailing, and should be designed in a manner that avoids dominance of, or contrast with, the character of the wider streetscape and neighbourhood.

f) Alterations to the rear of houses in the Residential 3 zone should be carried out in a manner that is generally compatible with the style of the original house itself in terms of form, use of materials, and detailing, and should be sympathetic to the built heritage of the area. (Greater flexibility in the type of change that may be acceptable at the rear is provided for through this criterion to allow for modern living requirements and for a relationship with the outdoors, the design should however still reflect the style of the subject building).

Alterations to buildings that are clearly visible from public vantage points such as reserves, beaches, the waterfront and other roads beyond the site should fit compatibly within the context of surrounding buildings and the neighbourhood and should avoid dominance of or contrast with the character of that context. Special attention must be paid to the bulk, scale, form, use of materials and consistency with the style of the original building.

COMMENT The proposed additions and alterations are primarily to the rear of the dwelling, noting design changes and site modifications have been deliberately undertaken in a manner which preserves the front façade of the dwelling. This includes ensuring non-complying signage is not placed on the front façade of the dwelling, so as not to obstruct views or detract from the streetscape character. The form and style of the addition, along with the materials used are in keeping with the design of the existing dwelling. Linear weatherboards (colour matched) and long-run corrugated metal roofing are proposed. Window and door joinery, noting its location to the side and rear of the building are proposed to be aluminium (colour matched to the existing timber joinery). Verandah and decking additions will be constructed of similar materials as those found on the existing dwelling to provide consistency in terms of external design. Guttering will match existing guttering on the dwelling, which appears to have been replaced in the past and is no longer original. From a decorative perspective the rear addition also includes a finial. A finial is any ornament (typically pointed) that decorates the apex of an object. On Victorian exteriors, finials are commonly found on the gable points.


May 2016


The dwelling does not specifically sit within a cluster of similar style dwellings; however it is acknowledged there are similar heritage buildings in the wider area. To the north is a commercial premise, whilst to the south, a large heritage building of a different style is evident. The Assessment of Heritage Effects provides specific comment in relation to each of the above assessment criteria. These have not been repeated here within this AEE, however the design of the proposed alterations is consistent with the corresponding assessment criteria and can be supported accordingly.

9.5 Objectives and Policies – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

9.5.1 Single House Zone

The Objectives and Policies for the Single House Zone are found in Part 2 Chapter D: Section 1.4. This zone proposes low density suburban housing which is generally characterised by one building per site of one to two storeys, surrounded by areas of private open space. The objectives envisage development that; is of a height, bulk and form that maintains and positively responds to the site and the neighbourhood’s low density suburban residential character, and; provides high-quality on-site amenity for residents and maintains the amenity of adjoining sites. COMMENT For this resource consent application, the relevant provisions of both the District Plan and the Proposed Plan must be considered. Overall, the Objectives and Policies of the Residential 3A zone and the proposed Single House zone, whilst not necessarily similar, do provide consistent intentions in terms of expected built form outcomes from a development control perspective. Noting the proposed Built Environment: Special Character – Residential North Shore overlay, more consistent heritage considerations which align more closely with the Residential 3A objectives and policies are provided within Part 9.5.2 of this AEE below.

9.5.2 Built Environment: Special Character – Residential North Shore Overlay

The following Objectives and Policies for the Special Character overlay under the Proposed Plan are found in Part 2 Chapter E: Section 3.1, and seek to ensure the landscape qualities of residential areas that display a special blend of built and natural features, generally involving period housing coupled with the presence of trees, are maintained and enhanced. COMMENT The retention of the dwelling on site ensure the primary objective in relation to the built form is met with all future additions to the rear of the dwelling. Future landscaping can be undertaken to replace that which was previously removed, noting the only established tree (the poplar to the south of the existing dwelling) was previously removed for safety reasons as its stabilising roots had been cut during re-piling of the dwelling. Future replacement planting can enhance the on-site landscape qualities of the site.

9.5.3 Earthworks

The following Objectives and Policies for earthworks activities under the Proposed Plan are found in Part 2, Chapter C, Section 5.2 and seek to ensure earthworks are undertaken in a manner that protects people and the environment and sediment generation from earthworks is minimised. It seeks to do this by retaining soil and sediment on the land, and not discharge it to water bodies and coastal water by use of best sediment and erosion control practices. COMMENT Refer to comments under Part 9.3.2 of this AEE above.


May 2016


9.6 Assessment Criteria – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The relevant Assessment Criteria for earthworks activities under the Proposed Plan are found in Part 3, Chapter H, Section 4.2 (3) and provide guidance on the design and suitability of erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during the works and ensure that earthworks result in appropriate landform modifications which do not adversely affect adjoining sites or wider catchment areas. COMMENT Refer to comments in Part 9.3.2 of this AEE above.

9.6.1 Current Weighting of the Proposed Plan

The Proposed Plan has recently been notified and various provisions have not yet been tested via submissions and the statutory process. Plan provisions at this stage in the process have potential for change and are generally afforded little weight.

9.7 Section 104 (1) (C)

Section 104(1)(C) of the Act requires that Council consider any other matters relevant and reasonably necessary to determine an application. There are no other matters in addition to those already discussed considered relevant or reasonably necessary to determine this application.

9.8 Section 104 (D)

Under Section 104D of the Act, if a proposal is a Non-Complying activity then it must pass at least one of the tests of Section 104D(1)(a) or Section 104D(1)(b) before an application can be assessed to make a decision under Section 104B of the RMA. If the application fails both tests of Section 104D then the application must be declined. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the threshold test of Section 104D because as demonstrated in Parts 7.3 and 9.8 of this AEE, the adverse effects on the environment will be less than minor and the proposal will not be contrary to the Objectives and Policies of the Operative or Proposed Plan. From the previous Section 104D assessment it can be concluded that the application meets both of the tests of Section 104D of the Act and therefore the application can be assessed against the provisions of Section 104B of the Act and a substantive decision made.


May 2016


10.0 PART II MATTERS

10.1 Purpose of the RMA

Part II of the Act contains the purpose and principles of the Act and comprises Sections 5-8. The stated purpose of the Act is to “promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. This includes enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. Part 2 contains the purpose and principles of the Act. These sections outline the broader principles that are to be considered for any resource use or development. Section 104 requires that all consent applications must have regard to Part 2 of the Act. An assessment of Sections 5 to 8 of the Act is provided below.

10.1.1 Section 5

The purpose of the Act is set out in Section 5 as being to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while —

a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

For the reasons outlined in Parts 7.3, 8.4 and 9.8 of this AEE above, it is considered that the childcare centre provides a medium intensity and overall development scale consistent with the expectations of the zone.

10.1.2 Section 6

Section 6 of the Act sets out matters of National Importance and requires that these be recognised and provided for. These include natural character of the coastal environment, natural, landscape and heritage areas, significant indigenous vegetation and fauna and the relationship of Maori with their culture and traditions. It is considered that there are no matters of national importance relating to this application.

10.1.3 Section 7

Section 7 outlines the matters that must be had regard to when managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources. It is considered that the proposed activity is in accordance with Section 7, as the childcare centre is deemed to be appropriate and consistent with the expectations for the site, and can be considered an appropriate development outcome within the zone.

10.1.4 Section 8

Section 8 states that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi shall be taken into account. It is considered that there are no matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi relevant to this application. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed application is consistent with the purpose of the Act in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources.


May 2016


11.0 CONCLUSION This application seeks resource consent from Council to establish an Early Childhood Education Centre within the Residential 3A zone, within both the existing building and the new rear addition, on the site located at No. 159 Victoria Road, Devonport. Under the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section) the proposal requires Non-Complying activity consent. Under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan the proposal requires Restricted Discretionary activity consent. Overall, consent is required as a Non-Complying activity. With regard to actual or potential adverse effects on the environment these have been assessed as being less than minor and, in many ways, positive in that the proposal provides an opportunity to significantly enhance the use of the site and provide a service very much in demand while maintaining a satisfactory level of neighbourhood amenity. It is subsequently considered, on balance, that the proposal is suitable for the zone, site and location for the following reasons:

For those reasons outlined in Part 7.3 of this AEE;

The childcare centre aligns with the objectives and policies for non-residential activities, as prescribed by the District Plan;

The childcare centre aligns with the various assessment criteria as prescribed by the District Plan;

The District Plan permitted activity noise criteria will be complied with at all sites, with the exception of 3 Ewen Alison Avenue.

Noise levels higher than what the District Plan prescribes for permitted activities are acceptable to the community provided that the noise level, incidence, timing and duration is properly managed;

Noise emitted from the site as a result of the childcare centre operating will be less than minor and reasonable when considered against the surrounding environment;

The proposal is consistent with the overall intent of the zone as the zone provides for a limited range of non-residential activities to meet the daily needs of residents;

The building addition to the rear, and the overall site layout, has been designed to a high architectural standard with the character generally replicated in terms of design, scale and materials;

Signage has deliberately been kept to a minimum, and off the façade of the building in recognition of the heritage values promoted within the zone;

The effect of the anticipated parking demand with the childcare centre is considered less than minor;

The effect of the expected trips generated with the proposal is considered as less than minor;

Operating hours will be limited via a condition of consent to those hours specified;

Upon the completion of site works, all bare land is to be planted in grass and/or landscaped to assist in site stability, mitigate the effects of stormwater run-off, and improve the overall aesthetics of the site;

From a servicing perspective, Chester Consultants have provided an Infrastructure Report and a Stormwater Disposal Report to ensure the effects of both servicing and an increase in stormwater runoff can be contained and effectively mitigated.


May 2016


Therefore, in terms of the discretion offered by Section 95 of the Act the statutory “tests” for non-notification would appear to be fulfilled and we therefore conclude that Council should be able to proceed on a non-notified basis. Finally, given subsequent compliance with relevant statutory documents, it is considered the childcare centre will satisfy the statutory obligations under Section 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, and based on the expert technical reports provided with this application consent can therefore be granted accordingly. AEE prepared by: The Planning Room PO Box 35674 Browns Bay, Auckland 0753 Contact: Duncan Ross Phone: 027 405 9765 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


May 2016


Appendix 1 – Certificate of Title


May 2016


Appendix 2 – Site Photos


May 2016


Appendix 3 – Application Plans


May 2016


Appendix 4 – Acoustic Report


May 2016


Appendix 5 – Pre-Application Meeting Notes


May 2016


Appendix 6 – Integrated Transport Assessment


May 2016


Appendix 6A – TEAM Traffic: s92 Request for Additional Information


May 2016


Appendix 7 – Infrastructure Report


May 2016


Appendix 8 – Stormwater Disposal Report


May 2016


Appendix 9 – Landscaping Plan


May 2016


Appendix 10 – Assessment of Heritage Effects

Date post:	06-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamdang
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

Proposal: The Establishment of an Early Childhood...

Documents