Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                             Monday 1 August 2016

Time:                            10.00 am

Venue:                          Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin

 

Sue Bidrose

Chief Executive Officer

 

Council

PUBLIC AGENDA

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Mayor Dave Cull

 

Deputy Mayor

Cr Chris Staynes

 

Members

Cr David Benson-Pope

Cr John Bezett

 

Cr Hilary Calvert

Cr Doug Hall

 

Cr Aaron Hawkins

Cr Mike Lord

 

Cr Jinty MacTavish

Cr Andrew Noone

 

Cr Neville Peat

Cr Richard Thomson

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Cr Andrew Whiley

 

Cr Kate Wilson

 

 

Senior Officer                               Sue Bidrose, Chief Executive Officer

 

Governance Support Officer      Pam Jordan

 

 

 

Pam Jordan

Governance Support Officer

 

 

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Pam.Jordan@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

 


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

 

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                   PAGE

 

1        Opening                                                                                                   5

2        Public Forum                                                                                             5

3        Apologies                                                                                                  5

4        Confirmation of Agenda                                                                              5

5        Declaration of Interest                                                                                6

6        Confirmation of Minutes                                                                              7

6.1   Ordinary Council meeting - 27 June 2016                                                7  

Minutes of Committees

7          Hearings Committee - 23 February 2016                                                       40

8        Hearings Committee - 7 March 2016                                                            53

9        Hearings Committee - 18 March 2016                                                           62

10      Hearings Committee - 6 April 2016                                                               78

11      Hearings Committee - 14 April 2016                                                             89

12      Hearings Committee - 1 June 2016                                                              99

13      Hearings Committee - 17 August 2015                                                        103

14      Hearings Committee - 17 August 2015                                                        109

15      Community and Environment Committee - 11 July 2016                                 115

16      Infrastructure Services Committee - 12 July 2016                                         119

17      Planning and Regulatory Committee - 12 July 2016                                        123

18      Economic Development Committee - 18 July 2016                                         126

19      Finance Committee - 18 July 2016                                                              130

20      Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations Committee - 4 May 2016                           134

21      Annual Plan Hearings/Deliberations Committee - 10 May 2016                         152

22      Audit and Risk Subcommittee - 16 May 2016                                                182

Minutes of Community Boards

23        Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 29 June 2016                                       189

24      Otago Peninsula Community Board - 30 June 2016                                        195

25      Strath Taieri Community Board - 30 June 2016                                             203

26      Mosgiel Taieri Community Board - 5 July 2016                                              208

27      Saddle Hill Community Board - 7 July 2016                                                  214

28      Chalmers Community Board - 13 July 2016                                                  220

Reports

29        22 Lachlan Avenue - Proposed Pedestrian Easement over the Town Belt            227

30      DCC Emissions Measurement, Management and Reduction Update                    236

31      Submission on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)                   271

32      Road Naming Policy Review                                                                      280

33      Insurance Renewal Year Ended 30 June 2017                                               300

34      DCC Risk Management Policy                                                                    310

35      2015/16 Carry Forward Budgets                                                                320

36      Waipori Fund - June 2016 Quarter                                                              327

37      Change to the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited                            333

Notice of Motion

38        Notice of Motion - Support for Urban Renewal Initiatives in South Dunedin/Funding to Assist with the Protection of Public and Private Infrastructure and Assets at Risk from Ground Water and Sea Level Changes                                                        418              

Resolution to Exclude the Public                                                                           420

 

 


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

1     Opening

The meeting will open with a prayer.

2     Public Forum

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

3     Apologies

An apology has been received from Cr Neville Peat.

 

That the Council:

 

Accepts the apology from Cr Neville Peat.

4     Confirmation of agenda

Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

Declaration of Interest

 

  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council meeting - 27 June 2016

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 27 June 2016 as a correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Minutes of Ordinary Council meeting  held on 27 June 2016

8

 

 



 

Council

MINUTES

 

Unconfirmed minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council held in the Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Monday 27 June 2016, commencing at 1.03 pm

 

PRESENT

 

Mayor

Mayor Dave Cull

 

Deputy Mayor

Cr Chris Staynes

 

Members

Cr David Benson-Pope

Cr John Bezett

 

Cr Hilary Calvert

Cr Doug Hall

 

Cr Aaron Hawkins

Cr Mike Lord

 

Cr Jinty MacTavish

Cr Andrew Noone

 

Cr Neville Peat

Cr Richard Thomson

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Cr Andrew Whiley

 

Cr Kate Wilson

 

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

Sue Bidrose (Chief Executive Officer), Ruth Stokes (General Manager Infrastructure and Networks), Simon Pickford (General Manager Services and Development), Grant McKenzie (Group Chief Financial Officer), Sandy Graham (Group Manager Corporate Services), Kristy Rusher (Manager Civic and Legal), Jane Nevill (Corporate Planner), Carolyn Allan (Senior Management Accountant), Nicola Pinfold (Group Manager Community and Planning), Graham Crombie (Chairman, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd), Tami Sargeant (Policy Analyst), Maria Ioannou (Corporate Policy Manager), Maria Sleeman (Leasing Officer), Karilyn Canton (In-House Legal Counsel), Jendi Paterson (Recreation Planning and Facilities Manager), Richard Saunders (Group Manager Parks and Recreation), Ros MacGill (Environmental Health/Animal Services Manager), Adrian Blair (Group Manager Customer and Regulatory Services), Rachel Brooking (Anderson Lloyd), Peter Hanlin (Senior Animal Control Officer), Tanya Morrison (Environmental Health Officer) and Jamie Shaw (Senior Communications Advisor)

 

Governance Support Officer      Pam Jordan

 

 

1       Opening

Venerable Lhagon Tulku and Venerable Geshe Dhonyoe, Dhargyey Buddhist Centre, opened the meeting with a prayer.


 

2       Public Forum

2.1    Warrington Freedom Camping Petition

 

Rhys Owen presented a petition of 248 signatures calling for non-self-contained freedom camping at Warrington Domain to be banned.  A meeting had been held at Warrington where people indicated that they were unhappy with freedom camping and decided to launch a petition.  Those who had signed the petition would like a bylaw amendment to make Warrington available for self-contained camping only.  Mr Owen circulated documents containing the petition, written complaints, concerns from the New Zealand Sea Lion Trust, concerns from camping ground owners, comments from the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, and photos of campers using the Warrington Domain over summer 2015/16.

 

Mr Owen advised that people signing the petition wanted to relocate campers.  There was community opposition to overwhelming numbers of campers.  It was considered that non-self-contained campers should be redirected to campgrounds.  A bylaw amendment needed to be in place before the summer.

 

Mr Owen responded to questions from Councillors, advising that the great majority of vehicles using the Domain were not self-contained, local people were concerned about the loss of their sports ground and hygiene issues, that the group had spoken to the Community Board previously, and the Council had a permit system in place for freedom camping that could be used by individuals or school groups.

 

Cr Thomson entered the meeting at 1.23 pm.

 

Mr Owen advised that residents did not want a total ban but just wanted to reduce the numbers.  Work also needed to be done to the Domain to turn it back into a usable sports area.

 

2.2    Amendment to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016

 

Karen Anderson tabled a submission advising that the proposed amendments to the bylaw confirmed the undisclosed removal of previously off-leash areas and obstructed the satisfaction of that legal obligation.  The issues she was raising had been raised before submissions closed.  The intention to remove off-leash access to tracks and reserves was not disclosed.

 

Ms Anderson commented that maps that replaced the current bylaw schedules were not disclosed and did not accurately reproduce the schedules in the current bylaw.  This was about the democratic process.  She did not believe the Council intended to reverse the default position without realising it and after the amount of time spent on the bylaw and consultation process.

 

Ms Anderson asked the Council not to pass the proposed amendments that confirmed the map that created the undisclosed and legally significant changes, and also confirmed the reversal of the "off-leash unless prohibited" clause.  She commented that the core idea behind the maps was fantastic though.

 

She requested the Council not to make bylaws using undisclosed maps and considered that the maps should be information, not regulation.

 

2.3    Freedom Camping at Warrington

 

Gerard Collings (Chairperson) and Alasdair Morrison (Deputy Chairperson), Waikouaiti Coast Community Board spoke on freedom camping at Warrington.  They did not want to respond to the petition as they had not seen it.  Mr Collings warned against "throwing the baby out with the bath water" as he believed that freedom camping, whether people liked it or not, was a growing part of the tourism industry, and a part that should be embraced.  He noted that the Council was looking for alternative sites to take pressure off Warrington.  He advised that there was no defined sports field at the recreation ground at Warrington.  There might be a need to adjust things so there was a better co-existence between campers and locals.

 

Mr Morrison reported that Community Board members who lived locally had spent a lot of time looking at the problem and spending time with staff.  There were problems with toilets and inadequate signage when people arrived late at night.  Signage had also been needed at the domain and the roads leading to it.  The signage issues had now been resolved.  Visitors had also been spoken to and signage in French and German regarding water restrictions etc had been installed.  Things had been reasonably under control in recent months.

 

In response to a suggestion that the petition be referred to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board Mr Collings advised that he would like the community to have full knowledge of this and it could be considered at the August meeting after staff comment had been received.

 

 

3       Apologies

There were no apologies.

 

4       Confirmation of agenda

 

 

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

Confirms the agenda with the following additions or alterations:

 

·      Item 25 (Amendments to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016) now to follow the Minutes of Community Boards; and

·      Warrington Freedom Camping Petition to be added as item 28 (in order to deal with the matter raised at the Public Forum).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/050)

 

 

5       Declarations of interest

Members were reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arose between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

Cr Mike Lord left the meeting at 1.55 pm.

 

6       Confirmation of Minutes

6.1    Ordinary Council meeting - 23 May 2016

 

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 23 May 2016 as a correct record.

 

 Motion carried (CNL/2016/051)

 

6.2    Extraordinary Council meeting - 20 June 2016

 

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

Confirms the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 20 June 2016 as a correct record.

 

 Motion carried (CNL/2016/052)

 

Minutes of Committees

7       Planning and Regulatory Committee - 7 June 2016

 

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Kate Wilson):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-7) and public forum of the minutes of the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting held on 7 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/053)

 

8       Infrastructure Services Committee - 7 June 2016

 

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Jinty MacTavish):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-12) of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 7 June 2016.

b)     Takes Part C items of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee held on Tuesday, 7 June 2016, in the non-public part of the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/054)

 

9       Community and Environment Committee - 8 June 2016

 

Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Neville Peat):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-11) and public forum of the minutes of the Community and Environment Committee meeting held on 8 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/055)

 

10     Finance Committee - 13 June 2016

 

Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Cr Andrew Whiley):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-7) of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 13 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/056)

 

11     Beauticians, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw - 21 April 2016

 

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Doug Hall):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes the minutes of the Beauticians, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw hearing held on 21 April 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/057)

 

Cr Mike Lord returned to the meeting at 1.59 pm.

Minutes of Community Boards

12     Waikouaiti Coast Community Board - 25 May 2016

 

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Doug Hall):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-12) and public forum of the minutes of the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board meeting held on 25 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/058)

 

13     Otago Peninsula Community Board - 26 May 2016

 

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Hilary Calvert):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-14) and public forum of the minutes of the Otago Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 26 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/059)

 

14     Strath Taieri Community Board - 26 May 2016

 

Moved (Cr Mike Lord/Cr Kate Wilson):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-9) of the minutes of the Strath Taieri Community Board meeting held on 26 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/060)

 

15     Mosgiel Taieri Community Board - 31 May 2016

 

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Mike Lord):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-13) and public forum of the minutes of the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board meeting held on 31 May 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/061)

 

16     Chalmers Community Board - 1 June 2016

 

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Doug Hall):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-12) of the minutes of the Chalmers Community Board meeting held on 1 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/062)

 

17     Saddle Hill Community Board - 2 June 2016

 

Moved (Cr Andrew Whiley/Cr Andrew Noone):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes Part A items (1-13) and public forum of the minutes of the Saddle Hill Community Board meeting held on 2 June 2016.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/063)

 


 

Reports

25     Amendments to the Dog Control Bylaw 2016

 

Cr Andrew Whiley declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting at 2.02 pm.

 

A report from Corporate Services advised that a resolution was required to finalise the maps included in the Dog Control Bylaw ("Bylaw").  It was also recommended that the opportunity be taken to make minor amendments to the Bylaw to improve its clarity.

 

Staff responded to questions from Councillors and explained the reason for the proposed amendments.

 

 

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Mike Lord):

 

That the Council:

 

a)   Resolves to amend the Bylaw, as shown in the attachment with the report.

b)   Notes that the Bylaw includes finalised maps.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/064)

 

Cr Andrew Whiley returned to the meeting at 2.25 pm.

 

18     Adoption of the 2016/17 Annual Plan

 

A report from Community and Planning recommended the adoption of the 2016/17 Annual Plan.  The report outlined the legislative requirements for development and adoption of the Annual Plan.

 

 

Staff responded to questions from Councillors.

 

 

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Adopts the 2016/17 Annual Plan

b)     Authorises the Council's Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Mayor, to make any minor editorial changes resulting from the final quality checks that will occur prior to the final printing of the document.

Mayor Cull noted that the Council had now reached the end of the formal Annual Plan process for the year, which continued the shift to more of a future focus, and he considered the Council could be proud of it.  He conveyed thanks to staff for their work, to those in the community who contributed and submitted, and to the Council.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/065)

 

19     Setting of Rates for the 2016/17 Financial Year

 

A report from Finance noted that now the Council had adopted the 2016/17 Annual Plan including the Funding Impact Statement it needed to resolve to set the rates as provided for in the Funding Impact Statement.

 


 

 

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing 1 July 2016 and ending on 30 June 2017.

1      General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 made on every rating unit, assessed on a differential basis as described below:

·           A rate of 0.3159 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "residential" category.

·           A rate of 0.3001 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "lifestyle" category.

·           A rate of 0.7739 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category.

·           A rate of 0.7013 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial Strath Taieri" category.

·           A rate of 0.5527 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "residential heritage bed and breakfasts" category.

·           A rate of 0.2527 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "farmland" category.

·           A rate of 0.0647 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

2      Community Services Rate

A targeted rate for community services, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           $227.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories.

·           $227.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, commercial Strath Taieri and Forsyth Barr Stadium" categories.

3      Kerbside Recycling Rate

A targeted rate for kerbside recycling, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           $66.30 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories.

·           $66.30 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial and commercial Strath Taieri" categories.

4      Drainage Rates

A targeted rate for drainage, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           $482.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

·           $241.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" categories and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

·           $482.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, residential institution, schools and Forsyth Barr Stadium" categories and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

·           $241.00 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "commercial, residential institution and schools" categories and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

·           $102.25 (including GST) per rating unit for all rating units in the "church" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

Rating units which are not "connected" to the scheme and which are not "serviceable" will not be liable for this rate.  Drainage is a combined targeted rate for sewage disposal and stormwater.  Sewage disposal makes up 86.9% of the drainage rate, and stormwater makes up 13.1%.  Non-rateable land will not be liable for the stormwater component of the drainage targeted rate.  Rates demands for the drainage targeted rate for non-rateable land will therefore be charged at 86.9%.

5      Commercial Drainage Rates – Capital Value

A targeted rate for drainage, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           A rate of 0.2856 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial and residential institution" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

·           A rate of 0.1428 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

·           A rate of 0.2142 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "school" category and which are "connected" to the public sewerage system.

·           A rate of 0.1071 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "school" category and which are "serviceable" by the public sewerage system.

·           A rate of 0.0243 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

This rate shall not apply to properties in Karitane, Middlemarch, Seacliff, Waikouaiti and Warrington.  This rate shall not apply to churches.  Drainage is a combined targeted rate for sewage disposal and stormwater.  Sewage disposal makes up 86.9% of the drainage rate, and stormwater makes up 13.1%.  Non-rateable land will not be liable for the stormwater component of the drainage targeted rate.  Rates demands for the drainage targeted rate for non-rateable land will therefore be charged at 86.9%.

6      Water Rates

A targeted rate for water supply, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           $372.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "connected" rating unit which receives an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws excepting properties in Karitane, Merton, Rocklands/Pukerangi, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, East Taieri, West Taieri and North Taieri.

·           $186.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "serviceable"  rating unit to which connection is available to receive an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws excepting properties in Karitane, Merton, Rocklands/Pukerangi, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, East Taieri, West Taieri and North Taieri.

·           $372.00 (including GST) per unit of water being one cubic metre (viz.  1,000 litres) per day supplied at a constant rate of flow during a full 24 hour period to any "connected"  rating unit situated in Karitane, Merton, Seacliff, Waitati, Warrington, West Taieri, East Taieri or North Taieri.

·           $186.00 (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of any "serviceable" rating unit situated in Waitati, Warrington, West Taieri, East Taieri or North Taieri.  This rate shall not apply to the availability of water in Merton, Karitane or Seacliff. 

7      Fire Protection Rates

A targeted rate for the provision of a fire protection service, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           A rate of 0.0865 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on all rating units in the "commercial" category.  This rate shall not apply to churches.

·           A rate of 0.0649 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on all rating units in the "residential institution" category. 

·           A rate of 0.0097 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

·           $111.60 (including GST) for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit within the "residential, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, lifestyle and farmland" category that is not receiving an ordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws.

8      Water Rates – Quantity of Water

A targeted rate for the quantity of water provided to any rating unit fitted with a water meter, being an extraordinary supply of water within the meaning of the Dunedin City Bylaws, set under section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, according to the following scale of charges (GST inclusive):

 

Annual Meter Rental Charge

20mm nominal diameter

$144.00

25mm nominal diameter

$184.00

30mm nominal diameter

$205.00

40mm nominal diameter

$232.00

50mm nominal diameter

$470.00

80mm nominal diameter

$581.00

100mm nominal diameter

$613.00

150mm nominal diameter

$881.00

300mm nominal diameter

$1,143.00

Hydrant Standpipe

$569.00

Reconnection Fee

$371.00

Special Reading Fee

$50.00

 

Backflow Prevention Charge

Backflow Preventer Test Fee

$91.00

Rescheduled Backflow Preventer Test Fee

$53.00

 

Water Charge

Merton, Rocklands, Hindon and individual farm supplied Bulk Raw Water Tariff

$0.11 per cubic metre

Frost Plug Installation

$40.00 per plug

All other treated water per cubic metre

$1.47 per cubic metre

Disconnection of Water Supply

$207.00

Where the supply of a quantity of water is subject to this Quantity of Water Targeted Rate, the rating unit will not be liable for any other targeted rate for the supply of the same water.

9      Allanton Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Allanton Wastewater Collection System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $411.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years.  Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit.  The Allanton area is shown in the map below:

Allanton_AP map

10    Blanket Bay Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Blanket Bay Drainage System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $636.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years.  Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit.  The Blanket Bay area is shown in the map below:

Blanket Bay

11    Curles Point Drainage Rate

A targeted rate for the capital contribution towards the Curles Point Drainage System, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $749.00 (including GST) per rating unit, to every rating unit paying their contribution towards the scheme as a targeted rate over 20 years.  Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit.  The Curles Point area is shown in the map below:

Curles Point

12    Private Drainage Warrington Rate

A targeted rate for the rating unit at 26 Bay Road, Warrington, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of $1,517.10 (including GST) to recover the cost of connecting to the public sewer.  Liability for the rate is on the basis of the provision of the service to each rating unit.

13    Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme

A targeted rate for the Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, per rating unit in the Warm Dunedin Targeted Rate Scheme. 

The targeted rate scheme provides a way for homeowners to install insulation and/or clean heating.  The targeted rate covers the cost and an annual interest rate.  The interest rates have been and will be:

Rates commencing 1 July 2014 8%

Rates commencing 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016 8.3%

14    Heritage Earthquake Strengthening Targeted Rate Scheme

A targeted rate for the Heritage Earthquake Strengthening Targeted Rate Scheme, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, per rating unit in the Heritage Earthquake Strengthening Targeted Rate Scheme.

The targeted rate scheme provides a way for building owners to make physical seismic improvements to heritage buildings. The targeted rate covers the cost and an annual interest rate.  The interest rate will be 8.3%.

 

15    Private Street Lighting Rate

A targeted rate for the purpose of recovering the cost of private street lights, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           $149.40 (including GST) per private street light divided by the number of separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit for all rating units in the "residential and lifestyle" categories in the private streets as identified in the schedule below.

·           $149.40 (including GST) per private street light divided by the number of rating units for all rating units in the "commercial" category in the private streets as identified in the schedule below. 

1-10

Achilles Avenue

9

Glengarry Court

1

Alton Avenue

10

Glengarry Court

2

Alton Avenue

11

Glengarry Court

2A

Alton Avenue

12

Glengarry Court

3

Alton Avenue

13

Glengarry Court

4

Alton Avenue

14

Glengarry Court

5

Alton Avenue

15

Glengarry Court

6

Alton Avenue

16

Glengarry Court

7

Alton Avenue

17

Glengarry Court

8

Alton Avenue

18

Glengarry Court

9

Alton Avenue

19

Glengarry Court

7

Angle Avenue

20

Glengarry Court

9

Angle Avenue

21

Glengarry Court

11

Angle Avenue

22

Glengarry Court

20

Angle Avenue

23

Glengarry Court

22

Angle Avenue

24

Glengarry Court

24

Angle Avenue

48

Glenross Street

43

Arawa Street

50

Glenross Street

47

Arawa Street

54

Glenross Street

17

Awa Toru Drive

56

Glenross Street

19

Awa Toru Drive

58

Glenross Street

21

Awa Toru Drive

60

Glenross Street

23

Awa Toru Drive

110

Glenross Street

25

Awa Toru Drive

114

Glenross Street

27

Awa Toru Drive

116

Glenross Street

29

Awa Toru Drive

230

Gordon Road

31

Awa Toru Drive

229

Gordon Road

33

Awa Toru Drive

34

Grandview Crescent

35

Awa Toru Drive

10

Halsey Street

37

Awa Toru Drive

1

Hampton Grove

39

Awa Toru Drive

2

Hampton Grove

41

Awa Toru Drive

3

Hampton Grove

43

Awa Toru Drive

4

Hampton Grove

60A

Balmacewen Road

5

Hampton Grove

60B

Balmacewen Road

6

Hampton Grove

62

Balmacewen Road

7

Hampton Grove

64

Balmacewen Road

8

Hampton Grove

1

Balmoral Avenue

9

Hampton Grove

2

Balmoral Avenue

10

Hampton Grove

3

Balmoral Avenue

11

Hampton Grove

4

Balmoral Avenue

12

Hampton Grove

5

Balmoral Avenue

14

Hampton Grove

6

Balmoral Avenue

15

Hampton Grove

7

Balmoral Avenue

16

Hampton Grove

8

Balmoral Avenue

17

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

9

Balmoral Avenue

18

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

10

Balmoral Avenue

19

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

11

Balmoral Avenue

20

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

12

Balmoral Avenue

21

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

16

Balmoral Avenue

22

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

17

Balmoral Avenue

23

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

19

Barclay Street

24

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

211

Bay View Road

25

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

211A

Bay View Road

26

Hampton Grove, Mosgiel

211B

Bay View Road

4

Harold Street

1

Beaufort Street

12

Harold Street

3

Beaufort Street

70a

Hazel Avenue

119

Belford Street

70

Hazel Avenue

12

Bell Crescent

72

Hazel Avenue

14

Bell Crescent

215a

Helensburgh Road

24

Bell Crescent

217a

Helensburgh Road

26

Bell Crescent

217b

Helensburgh Road

7

Bishop Verdon Close

219

Helensburgh Road

9

Bishop Verdon Close

219a

Helensburgh Road

10

Bishop Verdon Close

219b

Helensburgh Road

11

Bishop Verdon Close

221

Helensburgh Road

12

Bishop Verdon Close

223

Helensburgh Road

8

Bonnington Street

49

Highcliff Road

8a

Bonnington Street

49A

Highcliff Road

10

Bonnington Street

51

Highcliff Road

20K

Brighton Road

57

Highcliff Road

20J

Brighton Road

295

Highcliff Road

20H

Brighton Road

297

Highcliff Road

20G

Brighton Road

313

Highcliff Road

20F

Brighton Road

315a

Highcliff Road

20E

Brighton Road

315b

Highcliff Road

20D

Brighton Road

317

Highcliff Road

20C

Brighton Road

16

Highgate

20B

Brighton Road

18

Highgate

20A

Brighton Road

20

Highgate

20

Brighton Road

34a

Highgate

34

Burgess Street

34

Highgate

36

Burgess Street

216

Highgate

38

Burgess Street

218

Highgate

40

Burgess Street

144A

Highgate

42

Burgess Street

144B

Highgate

44

Burgess Street

146

Highgate

46

Burgess Street

146A

Highgate

48

Burgess Street

148

Highgate

50

Burgess Street

9

Kilgour Street

181

Burt Street

11

Kilgour Street

183

Burt Street

15

Kilgour Street

185

Burt Street

20

Kinvig Street

7

Bush Road, Mosgiel

22

Kinvig Street

80

Caldwell Street

2

Koremata Street

82

Caldwell Street

4

Koremata Street

1

Campbell Lane

12

Koremata Street

4

Campbell Lane

3

Lawson Street

5

Campbell Lane

4

Leithton Close

6

Campbell Lane

6

Leithton Close

7

Campbell Lane

9

Leithton Close

8

Campbell Lane

10

Leithton Close

9

Campbell Lane

11

Leithton Close

10

Campbell Lane

14

Leithton Close

11

Campbell Lane

15

Leithton Close

12

Campbell Lane

18

Leithton Close

13

Campbell Lane

19

Leithton Close

14

Campbell Lane

21

Leithton Close

15

Campbell Lane

22

Leithton Close

30

Cardigan Street, North East Valley

23

Leithton Close

32

Cardigan Street, North East Valley

26

Leithton Close

34

Cardigan Street, North East Valley

27

Leithton Close

36

Cardigan Street, North East Valley

28

Leithton Close

22

Centennial Avenue, Fairfield

29

Leithton Close

24

Centennial Avenue, Fairfield

32

Leithton Close

26

Centennial Avenue, Fairfield

33

Leithton Close

28

Centennial Avenue, Fairfield

36

Leithton Close

150

Chapman Street

5

Leven Street

150A

Chapman Street

2

Leyton Terrace

152

Chapman Street

21-67

Lock Street

12

Clearwater Street

23a

London Street

14

Clearwater Street

25

London Street

16

Clearwater Street

1-25

London Street

18

Clearwater Street

2-25

London Street

20

Clearwater Street

3-25

London Street

22

Clearwater Street

8

Lynwood Avenue

24

Clearwater Street

10

Lynwood Avenue

26

Clearwater Street

12c

Lynwood Avenue

28

Clearwater Street

12b

Lynwood Avenue

30

Clearwater Street

12a

Lynwood Avenue

32

Clearwater Street

12

Lynwood Avenue

34

Clearwater Street

14

Lynwood Avenue

36

Clearwater Street

3

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

22

Cole Street

5

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

11

Corstorphine Road

7

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

11A

Corstorphine Road

9

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

13

Corstorphine Road

11

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

15

Corstorphine Road

13

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

17

Corstorphine Road

15

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

21

Corstorphine Road

17

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

23

Corstorphine Road

19

McAllister Lane, Mosgiel

25

Corstorphine Road

210

Main South Road, Green Island

11

Craighall Crescent

131

Main South Road, Green Island

15

Craighall Crescent

340

Main South Road, Green Island

1

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

380

Main South Road, Green Island

2

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

1

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

4

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

2

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

6

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

3

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

8

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

4

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

10

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

5

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

12

Dalkeith Road, Port Chalmers

6

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

21

Davies Street

7

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

22

Davies Street

8

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

1

Devon Place

9

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

2

Devon Place

10

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

3

Devon Place

11

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

4

Devon Place

12

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

5

Devon Place

13

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

6

Devon Place

14

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

7

Devon Place

15

Mallard Place, Mosgiel

9

Devon Place

11

Malvern Street

10

Devon Place

15

Malvern Street

11

Devon Place

17a

Malvern Street

12

Devon Place

30

Marne Street

13

Devon Place

32

Marne Street

14

Devon Place

42

Marne Street

15

Devon Place

44

Marne Street

16

Devon Place

46

Marne Street

17

Devon Place

48

Marne Street

18

Devon Place

50

Marne Street

19

Devon Place

2

Meldrum Street

20

Devon Place

10

Meldrum Street

139b

Doon Street

33

Melville Street

139a

Doon Street

14

Middleton Road

139

Doon Street

16

Middleton Road

141

Doon Street

18

Middleton Road

143

Doon Street

20

Middleton Road

145

Doon Street

22

Middleton Road

149

Doon Street

24

Middleton Road

151

Doon Street

26

Middleton Road

5

Dorset Street

28

Middleton Road

7

Dorset Street

30

Middleton Road

10

Dorset Street

37

Middleton Road

11

Dorset Street

37a

Middleton Road

12

Dorset Street

39

Middleton Road

14

Dorset Street

43

Middleton Road

16

Dorset Street

47a

Middleton Road

18

Dorset Street

19

Montague Street

20

Dorset Street

21

Montague Street

21

Dorset Street

23

Montague Street

17

Duckworth Street

29

Moray Place

19

Duckworth Street

415

Moray Place

21

Duckworth Street

72

Newington Avenue

35

Duckworth Street

37

Norwood Street

37

Duckworth Street

41

Norwood Street

39

Duckworth Street

39

Pacific Street

39a

Duckworth Street

1

Pembrey Street

41

Duckworth Street

2

Pembrey Street

47

Duckworth Street

3

Pembrey Street

49

Duckworth Street

4

Pembrey Street

53

Duckworth Street

5

Pembrey Street

 

Dunedin Airport

6

Pembrey Street

1–31

Eastbourne Street

7

Pembrey Street

2–31

Eastbourne Street

8

Pembrey Street

3–31

Eastbourne Street

10

Pembrey Street

4–31

Eastbourne Street

11

Pembrey Street

5–31

Eastbourne Street

264

Pine Hill Road

6–31

Eastbourne Street

264a

Pine Hill Road

7–31

Eastbourne Street

266B

Pine Hill Road

8–31

Eastbourne Street

266A

Pine Hill Road

9–31

Eastbourne Street

268A

Pine Hill Road

10–31

Eastbourne Street

268B

Pine Hill Road

11–31

Eastbourne Street

270

Pine Hill Road

12–31

Eastbourne Street

272

Pine Hill Road

13–31

Eastbourne Street

274

Pine Hill Road

14–31

Eastbourne Street

278A

Pine Hill Road

15–31

Eastbourne Street

278B

Pine Hill Road

16–31

Eastbourne Street

390

Pine Hill Road

17–31

Eastbourne Street

409

Pine Hill Road

18–31

Eastbourne Street

411

Pine Hill Road

19–31

Eastbourne Street

5

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

20–31

Eastbourne Street

6

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

21–31

Eastbourne Street

8

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

22–31

Eastbourne Street

9

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

23–31

Eastbourne Street

10

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

24–31

Eastbourne Street

11

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

25–31

Eastbourne Street

12

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

26–31

Eastbourne Street

13

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

27–31

Eastbourne Street

14

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

28–31

Eastbourne Street

15

Pinfold Place, Mosgiel

29–31

Eastbourne Street

19

Queen Street

30–31

Eastbourne Street

19A

Queen Street

31–31

Eastbourne Street

223

Ravensbourne Road

32–31

Eastbourne Street

45

Rewa Street

33–31

Eastbourne Street

87

Riselaw Road

34–31

Eastbourne Street

89

Riselaw Road

35–31

Eastbourne Street

89a

Riselaw Road

36–31

Eastbourne Street

91

Riselaw Road

37–31

Eastbourne Street

91a

Riselaw Road

38–31

Eastbourne Street

93

Riselaw Road

39–31

Eastbourne Street

93a

Riselaw Road

40–31

Eastbourne Street

21

Rosebery Street

41–31

Eastbourne Street

16

Selkirk Street

42–31

Eastbourne Street

11

Shand Street, Green Island

43–31

Eastbourne Street

14

Sheen Street

46–31

Eastbourne Street

6

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

47–31

Eastbourne Street

8

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

50–31

Eastbourne Street

10

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

51–31

Eastbourne Street

12

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

8

Echovale Avenue

14

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

10

Echovale Avenue

16

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

12

Echovale Avenue

20

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

2

Elbe Street

22

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

202

Elgin Road

24

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

204

Elgin Road

26

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

206

Elgin Road

28

Silver Springs Boulevard, Mosgiel

208

Elgin Road

1-27

St Albans Street

1

Eton Drive

2-27

St Albans Street

4

Eton Drive

3-27

St Albans Street

5

Eton Drive

4-27

St Albans Street

6

Eton Drive

5-27

St Albans Street

7

Eton Drive

6-27

St Albans Street

8

Eton Drive

7-27

St Albans Street

9

Eton Drive

8-27

St Albans Street

10

Eton Drive

9-27

St Albans Street

11

Eton Drive

10-27

St Albans Street

12

Eton Drive

11-27

St Albans Street

13

Eton Drive

12-27

St Albans Street

14

Eton Drive

13-27

St Albans Street

15

Eton Drive

4

Stanley Square

16

Eton Drive

5

Stanley Square

17

Eton Drive

6

Stanley Square

18

Eton Drive

7

Stanley Square

19

Eton Drive

8

Stanley Square

20

Eton Drive

9

Stanley Square

2

Everton Road

10

Stanley Square

3

Everton Road

11

Stanley Square

4

Everton Road

12

Stanley Square

64

Every Street

365

Stuart Street

66

Every Street

367

Stuart Street

68

Every Street

367a

Stuart Street

70

Every Street

55

Sunbury Street

76

Every Street

57

Sunbury Street

7

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

59

Sunbury Street

9

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

59a

Sunbury Street

11

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

19

Sunshine Lane

13

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

21

Sunshine Lane

15

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

23

Sunshine Lane

17

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

25

Sunshine Lane

19

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

27

Sunshine Lane

21

Fern Road, Ravensbourne

67

Tahuna Road

19

Ferntree Drive

67A

Tahuna Road

21

Ferntree Drive

67B

Tahuna Road

23

Ferntree Drive

69

Tahuna Road

25

Ferntree Drive

69A

Tahuna Road

45

Forfar Street

69B

Tahuna Road

47

Forfar Street

69C

Tahuna Road

47a

Forfar Street

1

Taupo Lane

49

Forfar Street

2

Taupo Street

51

Forfar Street

1

Thomas Square

53

Forfar Street

2

Thomas Square

53a

Forfar Street

3

Thomas Square

1–80

Formby Street

4

Thomas Square

5–80

Formby Street

5

Thomas Square

6–80

Formby Street

6

Thomas Square

7–80

Formby Street

7

Thomas Square

8–80

Formby Street

8

Thomas Square

10–80

Formby Street

9

Thomas Square

14–80

Formby Street

4A

Totara Street, Ravensbourne

15–80

Formby Street

85A

Victoria Road

16–80

Formby Street

85B

Victoria Road

17–80

Formby Street

85C

Victoria Road

18–80

Formby Street

85D

Victoria Road

19–80

Formby Street

85G

Victoria Road

20–80

Formby Street

85H

Victoria Road

248

George Street

85I

Victoria Road

558

George Street

85J

Victoria Road

150A

Gladstone Road North

85K

Victoria Road

150B

Gladstone Road North

85L

Victoria Road

150C

Gladstone Road North

85M

Victoria Road

150D

Gladstone Road North

85N

Victoria Road

150E

Gladstone Road North

85O

Victoria Road

152B

Gladstone Road North

85P

Victoria Road

152C

Gladstone Road North

85Q

Victoria Road

152D

Gladstone Road North

85R

Victoria Road

152E

Gladstone Road North

146

Victoria Road

154A

Gladstone Road North

44

Waimea Avenue

214

Gladstone Road North

46

Waimea Avenue

216

Gladstone Road North

48

Waimea Avenue

218

Gladstone Road North

50

Waimea Avenue

220

Gladstone Road North

58/60

Waimea Avenue

222

Gladstone Road North

62/64

Waimea Avenue

224

Gladstone Road North

16

Warwick Street

226

Gladstone Road North

18

Warwick Street

228

Gladstone Road North

23

Warwick Street

230

Gladstone Road North

1

Wenlock Square

232

Gladstone Road North

2

Wenlock Square

234

Gladstone Road North

3

Wenlock Square

39

Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel

4

Wenlock Square

41

Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel

5

Wenlock Square

45

Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel

6

Wenlock Square

47

Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel

7

Wenlock Square

49

Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel

8

Wenlock Square

57

Glenbrook Drive, Mosgiel

9

Wenlock Square

1

Glenfinnan Place

10

Wenlock Square

3

Glenfinnan Place

11

Wenlock Square

4

Glenfinnan Place

12

Wenlock Square

4A

Glenfinnan Place

14

Wenlock Square

5

Glenfinnan Place

15

Wenlock Square

6

Glenfinnan Place

17

Wenlock Square

7

Glenfinnan Place

18

Wenlock Square

8A

Glenfinnan Place

19

Wenlock Square

8B

Glenfinnan Place

20

Wenlock Square

9A

Glenfinnan Place

21

Wenlock Square

9B

Glenfinnan Place

33

Wickliffe Street

10A

Glenfinnan Place

19

Woodside Terrace

10B

Glenfinnan Place

20

Woodside Terrace

1

Glengarry Court

22

Woodside Terrace

2

Glengarry Court

23

Woodside Terrace

3

Glengarry Court

24

Woodside Terrace

4

Glengarry Court

25

Woodside Terrace

5

Glengarry Court

25a

Woodside Terrace

6

Glengarry Court

26

Woodside Terrace

7

Glengarry Court

27

Woodside Terrace

16    Tourism/Economic Development Rate

A targeted rate for Tourism/Economic Development, set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential basis as follows:

·           0.0154 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial" category.

·           0.0132 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on every rating unit in the "commercial Strath Taieri" category.

·           0.0014 cents in the dollar (including GST) of capital value on the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

Differential Matters and Categories

b)     Adopt the following differential categories for the 2016/17 financial year.

The differential categories are determined in accordance with the Council's land use codes.  The Council's land use codes are based on the land use codes set under the Rating Valuation Rules 2008 and are set out in Attachment A.  In addition, the Council has established categories for residential institutions, residential heritage bed and breakfasts, the Forsyth Barr Stadium, churches, and schools.

1      Differentials Based on Land Use

The Council uses this matter to:

·           Differentiate the general rate.

·           Differentiate the community services rate.

·           Differentiate the private street lighting rate.

·           Differentiate the fire protection rate.

·           Differentiate the kerbside recycling rate.

·           Differentiate the Tourism/Economic Development rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

·           Residential – includes all rating units used for residential purposes including single residential, multi unit residential, multi-use residential, residential special accommodation, residential communal residence dependant on other use, residential bach/cribs, residential carparking and residential vacant land.

·           Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts – includes all rating units meeting the following description:

·        Bed and breakfast establishment; and

·        Classified as commercial for rating purposes due to the number of bedrooms (greater than four); and

·        Either:

·       the majority of the establishment is at least 80 years old, or

·       the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration, or

·       the establishment is a Dunedin City Council Protected Heritage Building as identified in the District Plan; and

·        The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

·           Lifestyle – includes all rating units with Council's land use codes 2, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

·           Commercial Strath Taieri – includes all rating units not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, or Farmland in the Strath Taieri area.

·           Commercial – includes all rating units with land uses not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, Commercial Strath Taieri, Farmland or Forsyth Barr Stadium.

·           Farmland - includes all rating units used solely or principally for agricultural or horticultural or pastoral purposes.

·           Forsyth Barr Stadium – this includes land at 130 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin, Assessment 4024687, Valuation reference 27190-01402-A.

2      Differentials Based on Land Use and Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses these matters to differentiate the drainage rate and the commercial drainage rate.

The differential categories based on land use are:

·           Residential – includes all rating units used for residential purposes including single residential, multi-unit residential, multi-use residential, residential special accommodation, residential communal residence dependant on other use, residential bach/cribs, residential carparking and residential vacant land.

·           Residential Heritage Bread and Breakfasts – includes all rating units meeting the following description:

·        Bed and breakfast establishment; and

·        Classified as commercial for rating purposes due to the number of bedrooms (greater than four); and

·        Either:

·       the majority of the establishment is at least 80 years old or

·       the establishment has Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Registration or

·       the establishment is a Dunedin City Council Protected Heritage Building as identified in the District Plan; and

·        The bed and breakfast owner lives at the facility.

·           Lifestyle - includes all rating units with Council's land use codes 2, 20, 21, 22 and 29.

·           Farmland - includes all rating units used solely or principally for agricultural or horticultural or pastoral purposes.

·           Commercial – includes all rating units with land uses not otherwise categorised as Residential, Residential Heritage Bed and Breakfasts, Lifestyle, Farmland, Residential Institutions, Forsyth Barr Stadium, Churches or Schools.

·           Forsyth Barr Stadium – this includes land at 130 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin, Assessment 4024687, Valuation reference 27190-01402-A.

·           Residential Institutions - includes only rating units with the Council's land use codes 95 and 96.

·           Churches – includes all rating units used for places of religious worship.

·           Schools - includes only rating units used for schools that do not operate for profit.

The differential categories based on provision or availability of service are:

·           Connected – any rating unit that is connected to a public sewerage drain.

·           Serviceable – any rating unit that is not connected to a public sewerage drain but is capable of being connected to the sewerage system (being a property situated within 30 metres of a public drain).

3      Differentials Based on Provision or Availability of Service

The Council uses this matter to differentiate the water rates.

The differential categories based on provision or availability of service are:

·           Connected – any rating unit that is supplied by the water supply system.

·           Serviceable – any rating unit that is not supplied but is capable of being supplied by the water supply system (being a rating unit situated within 100 metres of the nearest water supply).

Minimum Rates

c)     Approves that where the total amount of rates payable in respect of any rating unit is less than $5.00 including GST, the rates payable in respect of the rating unit shall be such amount as the Council determines but not exceeding $5.00 including GST.

Low Value Rating Units

d)     Approves that rating units with a capital value of $3,500 or less will only be charged the general rate.

Land Use Codes

e)     Approves that the land use codes attached to this report are adopted as the Council's land use codes for the purpose of the rating method.

Separately Used or Inhabited Part of a Rating Unit

f)     Adopts the following definition of a separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit:

"A separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit includes any portion inhabited or used by the owner/a person other than the owner, and who has the right to use or inhabit that portion by virtue of a tenancy, lease, licence, or other agreement.

This definition includes separately used parts, whether or not actually occupied at any particular time, which are provided by the owner for rental (or other form of occupation) on an occasional or long term basis by someone other than the owner.

For the purpose of this definition, vacant land and vacant premises offered or intended for use or habitation by a person other than the owner and usually used as such are defined as 'used'.

For the avoidance of doubt, a rating unit that has a single use or occupation is treated as having one separately used or inhabited part."

Lump Sum Contributions

g)     Approves that no lump sum contributions will be sought for any targeted rate.

Rating by Instalments

h)     Approves the following schedule of rates to be collected by the Council, payable by four instalments.

The City is divided into four areas based on Valuation Roll Numbers, as set out below:

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 3 continued

Valuation Roll Numbers:

26700

26990

26500

27550

26710

27000

26520

27560

26760

27050

26530

27600

26770

27060

26541

27610

26850

27070

26550

27760

26860

27080

26580

27770

26950

27150

26590

27780

26960

27350

26620

27790

26970

27360

26640

27811

26980

27370

26651

27821

27160

27380

26750

27822

27170

27500

26780

27823

27180

27510

27250

27831

27190

27520

27260

27841

27200

27851

27270

27871

 

27861

27280

27911

 

27880

27450

27921

 

27890

27460

27931

 

27901

27470

27941

 

28000

 

 

 

28010

 

 

 

28020

 

 

Area 4 comprises ratepayers with multiple assessments who pay on a schedule.

Due Dates for Payment of Rates

i)      Approves the due dates for all rates with the exception of water rates, which are charged based on water meter consumption, will be payable in four instalments due on the dates below:

 

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Instalment 1

26/08/16

02/09/16

16/09/16

02/09/16

Instalment 2

04/11/16

18/11/16

02/12/16

18/11/16

Instalment 3

03/02/17

17/02/17

24/02/17

17/02/17

Instalment 4

19/05/17

02/06/17

09/06/17

02/06/17

Water meter invoices are sent separately from other rates at intervals depending on the quantity of water consumed.

Penalties

j)     Resolves to charge the following penalties on unpaid rates:

1      A charge of 10% will be added to the amount of any instalment remaining unpaid the day after the instalment due date set out above.

2      Where a ratepayer has not paid the first instalment by the due date of that instalment, and has paid the total rates and charges in respect of the rating unit for the 2016/17 rating year by the due date of the second instalment the 10% additional charge shall be remitted.

3      An additional charge of 10% shall be added to rates, including additional charges, which have been levied in any previous financial year and which remain unpaid on 1 October 2016.

4      An additional charge of 10% shall be added to rates for any previous financial year, including additional charges, to which an additional charge has been added under Paragraph (3) and which remain unpaid on 1 April 2017.

Assessing and Recovering Rates

k)     Approves that the Chief Executive Officer, Group Chief Financial Officer, Financial Controller and Rates and Revenue Team Leader be authorised to take all necessary steps to assess and recover the above rates.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/066)

 

20     Statements of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Limited and its Subsidiaries and Associate Companies

 

A report from Corporate Services appended the Statements of Intent from Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL) and its subsidiaries and associate companies and noted that the companies were required by law to prepare a Statement of Intent on an annual basis.

 

 

The Group Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd responded to question from Councillors.

 

Cr Aaron Hawkins left the meeting at 3.00 pm and returned at 3.01 pm during the course of discussion.

 

 

Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Mike Lord):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Notes the Statements of Intent for the Dunedin City Holdings Limited subsidiaries and associate companies, approved by Dunedin City Holdings Limited at its meeting on 2 June 2016.

b)     Approves the Statement of Intent for Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, that was approved by the Dunedin City Holdings Limited Board meeting on 2 June 2016, with the addition of the words "… and so far as practicable using best practice standardised reporting measures and templates where possible", to the first Objective in section 8.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/067)

 

Adjournment of meeting

 

 

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/068)

 

The meeting adjourned from 3.29 pm to 3.47 pm.

 

21     Change to the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited

 

A report from Corporate Services sought the Council's approval to update the Constitution of Dunedin City Holdings Limited.  The new Constitution reflected current legislation and made changes to the term of appointment for Directors.  At present there was no maximum term and it was proposed that Directors would retire after three consecutive, three year terms.  At this time other changes had also been made to the Constitution which were highlighted in Attachment D of the report.

 

The following amendments to the draft Constitution were suggested during the course of discussion:

 

·      8.1 - to be removed

·      10.1 – to be revised

·      11.2 – now to end: "… following shareholder approval"

·      11.7 – to be removed.

 

 

Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Mike Lord):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Refers the new draft Constitution, reflecting the change in the term of Directors to the Board of Dunedin City Holdings Limited on behalf of the Council as shareholder, for discussion with DCHL and to be returned to Council for final approval.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/069)

 

22     Te Ao Turoa - proposed governance structure

 

A report from Community and Planning provided two governance options for the Council's consideration for the delivery of Te Ao Tūroa – Our Natural World: Dunedin's Environment Strategy.

 

Staff responded to questions from Councillors.  Amendments to the Terms of Reference were suggested during the course of discussion.

 

 

Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Approves the establishment of Te Ao Tūroa  Steering Group (comprising Dunedin City Council and external representatives as per paragraph 8 a-f of the report).

b)     Approves the draft Terms of Reference with the changes suggested for the proposed Te Ao Tūroa Steering Group appended to the report.

Terms of Reference Changes

 

1        End of last paragraph in section 2.0 to be: "The work programme will reflect the strategy's priorities."

 

2        Section 3.0, second part to be replaced with: "Partnership members can appoint up to 5 additional members to be selected from public expressions of interest with appointees selected by the partnership members according to a skills statute designed to ensure the diversity of sector skills/experience/community representation needed to successful delivery of the goals within the strategy are at the table, with due regard to see representatives from business, community conservation groups, youth and rural sector."

 

c)     Nominates Cr Jinty MacTavish to be the elected representative and Chair of the Te Ao Tūroa Steering Group. 

Motion carried (CNL/2016/070)

 

 

Adjournment of meeting

 

 

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

Adjourns the meeting.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/071)

 

The meeting adjourned from 4.30 pm to 4.39 pm.

 

 

23     Town Belt - Mornington Park proposed Lease to the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust

 

A report from Parks and Recreation and Corporate Services recommended the approval of an application by the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust to lease part of Mornington Park situated in Dunedin's Town Belt.  The Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust was seeking to develop a facility to promote its broader objective of reinstating the High Street cable car line.  The location of the lease was a site that was as close as practicably possible to the former High Street cable car route.  While the proposed lease was taken on its own merits and for a specific term only, this proposal was seen as stage one of the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust's bigger project which was to ultimately re-create the actual route of the High Street cable car line.

 

Moved (Cr John Bezett/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Approves as the administering body of the reserve and on behalf of the Minister of Conservation under Instrument of Delegation dated 12 June 2013, the granting of a lease in terms of section 54 (1) (a) of the Reserves Act 1977 to the Dunedin Heritage Light Rail Trust over part of the land situated in the Dunedin Town Belt at Mornington Park, Eglinton Road, Mornington, Dunedin being 72m2 more or less being situated in the City of Dunedin part Town Belt of Dunedin and Section 1 Town Belt Town of Dunedin, part Computer Freehold Register OT19C/115.

b)     Notes that as a public notification process was undertaken with twenty submissions received in favour and one submission received against the proposal, the requirement to publicly notify the intention to grant the lease has been satisfied.

c)     Authorises the Group Manager, Parks and Recreation to finalise the details of the lease with the Trust, and give or withhold any consents that may be sought under the lease (including the exact construction and design details).

Motion carried (CNL/2016/072)

 

24     Amended Proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016

 

A report from Regulatory Services appended the amended proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016 for adoption.  A hearing panel made up of Councillors Peat (Chair), Lord, Hall and Whiley considered all submissions and had recommended some minor changes to the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw.

 

Moved (Cr Neville Peat/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Approves and adopts the Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016 as amended by the Hearings Committee, with an operative date of 1 August 2016.

b)     Determines that the proposed Beauty Therapists, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw 2016 is necessary and is the most appropriate form of bylaw and that it does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c)     Revokes the 2005 Beauticians, Tattooists and Skin Piercers Bylaw, with effect of revocation being 1 August 2016.

Cr Neville Peat commented on the process and thanked submitters and staff.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/073)

 

26     Election Issues 2016

 

A report from the Electoral Officer outlined options available to the Council regarding the order of candidate names on voting documents.  The previous election saw the Council adopt random order.  A brief update was also provided on other preparations for the election.

 

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

 

That the Council:

 

 

a)     Adopts random order for the order of candidate names at the 2016 Dunedin City Elections.

b)      Notes the other preparations in place for the election.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/074)

 

27     Rules for the Recovery of Expenses for Elected Members

 

A report from Civic provided details of the Rules for the Recovery for Expenses for Elected Members (the rules).  The rules needed to be approved by Council prior to submission to the Remuneration Authority.

 

Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron Hawkins):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Approves the Rules for the Recovery of Expenses for Elected Members.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/075)

 

28     Warrington Freedom Camping Petition

 

Cr Noone suggested referring the petition presented at the Public Forum to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board.

 

 

Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Kate Wilson):

 

That the Council:

 

a)     Refers the petition received at the Public Forum from Warrington residents to the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board and, after consideration, this be brought back to the Council.

Motion carried (CNL/2016/076)

 

 

Resolution to exclude the public

Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):

 

That the Council:

 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting namely:

 

General subject of the matter to be considered

Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

 

Reason for Confidentiality

C1  Ordinary Council meeting - 23 May 2016 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(j)

The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

 

S7(2)(a)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

 

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

 

C2  Infrastructure Services Committee - 7 June 2016 - Public Excluded

S7(2)(b)(ii)

The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

 

S7(2)(h)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

S48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act, or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above after each item.

 

Motion carried (CNL/2016/077)

 

 

The meeting moved into confidential at 4.52 pm.

 

 

 


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

Minutes of Committees

Hearings Committee - 23 February 2016

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 23 February 2016 as a correct record (15 Midland Street, Dunedin).

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

A

Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 23 February 2016

41

 

 



 

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

 

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Tuesday 23 February 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

 

PRESENT

 

Chairperson

Cr Andrew Noone

 

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Cr Andrew Whiley

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Darryl Sycamore (Processing Officer).

 

Governance Support Officer      Wendy Collard

 

 

 

 

PART A:

 

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)

 

"That the meeting been adjourned to allow the arrival of a member of the applicant's team."

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.05 am and reconvened at 9.10 am.

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-354, 15 MIDLAND STREET, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee considered an application for the establishment and operation of a fresh produce wholesale and retail activity, with associated warehousing, and a café at 15 Midland Street, Dunedin.

 

The committee was required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

The applicant was represented by:

 

·           Chris Fowler (Legal Counsel for applicant)

·           Mark Allan (Consultant Planner on behalf of applicant)

·           Rebecca Parish (Property Development Manager, Foodstuffs)

 

 

Procedural Issues

 

There were no procedural matters. 


 

 

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

 

The Planning Officer (Darryl Sycamore) spoke to a summary of his report and provided an overview of the proposal.  Mr Sycamore commented that the application was for the establishment and operation of a small scale supermarket which promoted fresh, local produce with an emphasis on the food origin.  He advised that consent was also sought to sell liquor at the market and the proposal included a café.

 

Mr Sycamore advised that the proposed layout for the premises would feature a 1,108m² space which would contain the entry area and market area; a butchery service area; an area set aside for packaging and preparation, with separate chillers for dairy, butchery and produce; a 394m² mezzanine office/administration area which would span over a portion of the market area; and a café with its own entrance and outdoor seating, comprising 203m².  He commented that a number of signs were also sought as part of the application.

 

Mr Sycamore advised that the subject site was zoned Industrial 1 in the District Plan with Midland Street classified as a district road in the Plan's roading hierarchy.  He advised that there were no designations on the site.

 

Mr Sycamore noted that the baseline in this case included the establishment of a Garden Centre which was a non-fanciful activity at the location.  The baseline would be likely to result in similar effects to the proposed produce market.  On that basis he had determined that the effects limb of the 104D gateway test had been met. 

 

Mr Sycamore advised that the zone rules did not allow for retail activity at the site.  He commented that he had also identified potential concerns regarding reverse sensitivity.  Mr Sycamore advised that he considered the proposal to be contrary to key Sustainability and Industrial zone objectives and policies.  In his view the proposal was not a “true exception” and he considered it could set a precedent for future applications for the establishment of retail activities with the industrial zone affecting its utility for industrial activity. 

 

Mr Sycamore concluded that the proposal was contrary to key objectives and policies of the Industrial zone and Sustainability Sections of the Plan.  He advised that in his opinion it would likely set an undesirable precedent for retail activity to be established on industrial land.  On that basis he recommended that the proposal be declined.

 

The Applicant’s Presentation

 

Mark Allan (Consultant Planner on behalf of the applicant) tabled and spoke to the evidence in support of the application.  Mr Allan provided a background to a marked up aerial photo which demonstrated the mixed land use in the wider area of the site.  He also presented a floor layout of the proposed Raeward Fresh outlet which explained the areas of the building were to be utilised by Raeward Fresh.  Mr Allan also provided an explanation on which parts of the existing building would be demolished and the works that would be undertaken to modify the building.  Mr Allan responded to questions on tenancy and ownership and he clarified the percentages of floor area for the café and other parts of the premises.

 

Chris Fowler (Legal Counsel for the applicant) tabled written legal submissions on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Fowler commented that it was appropriate to establish the Raeward Fresh Outlet at the proposed site as effects were no more than minor and that the proposal was generally consistent with relevant objectives and policies.  He commented that the likely precedent effects were overstated and that there are significant positive effects from the approval of the application.

 

Mr Fowler advised that Mr Allan’s assessment of objectives and policies was that the activity was largely consistent with the operative plans and at worst the proposal was inconsistent with a sustainability section objective and policy.  Mr Fowler commented that Mr Allan had reached similar findings in relation to the proposed plan.  He concluded that the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of both plans when considered as a whole.  Mr Fowler noted that there was agreement between the planners on adverse effects being minor.

 

Mr Fowler covered the issue of undesirable precedent in some detail referring to relevant case law.  He observed that Local Authorities need to approach challenges to proposals on the grounds of plan integrity and precedent with real caution.

 

Mr Fowler commented on the issues with the planning report in relation to whether the proposal was a supermarket.  He provided clarification that the proposed Raeward Fresh outlet was a boutique fresh meat and produce market that provided a retail offering to members of the public and wholesale supply to trade customers.  He noted that the other products offered were very much subordinate and only a compliment to market produce for convenience which he considered it was a distinctly different offering to a supermarket.

 

Mr Fowler described the distinctive features of the proposal that are not readily replicated and he noted that the evidence of Mr Allan identified conditions that would give the Council a high degree of confidence that the features that made the Raeward Fresh application materially different would be preserved.  Mr Fowler emphasised the uniqueness of the Raeward Fresh application, and its difference from small or large supermarkets because of its produce focus.

 

Mr Fowler concluded by identifying that an overall assessment under Section 5 of the Act supported granting consent and approval would best serve the purposes of the Act. 

 

Mr Fowler responded to a number of questions on how this proposal could be distinguished from other retailers in relation to precedent, potential reverse sensitivity and the intention in the operative plan to limit retailing associated with permitted industrial zone activities to 10% of the floor area of buildings. 

 

Rebecca Parish (Property Development Manager, Foodstuffs) outlined her history with Foodstuffs and her role as Property Development Manager.  Ms Parish provided a background which outlined the current foodstuffs distribution operation on a site across the road which was owned by Foodstuffs.  She commented that the subject site was leased by Foodstuffs and was the location of former Rattrays Cash and Carry which was now disestablished.  Ms Parish commented on the desire of Foodstuffs to redevelop the site and she considered that the surrounding land use and amenity were similar to other Raeward Fresh outlets in Queenstown, Christchurch and Nelson.  She noted that the current use of the building was as overflow for the Foodstuffs distribution centre and that part of the building was sub-let to a transport company.  Ms Parish advised that the building on the subject site was in poor condition and that it required extensive renovation. 

 

Ms Parish provided detail on the types of goods to be sold from the proposed Raeward Fresh and noted that there were currently 5 Raeward Fresh stores.  She commented that she considered that Raeward Fresh was an entirely different brand to Veggie Boys providing a higher grade of produce.  Ms Parish provided data that showed 80% of annual sales related to butchery and produce items and she outlined how it differed from a supermarket.  She commented that liquor was only a minor but complimentary part of the overall mix of goods.

 

Ms Parish outlined the positive effects of the proposal which included the upgrading of the building, employment and consumer choice.  She commented on the synergy between the main Foodstuffs distribution site and the proposed Raeward Fresh outlet and noted that this was one of the factors in the Foodstuffs wouldingness to invest in the redevelopment.  Ms Parish identified that Raeward Fresh outlets were not sited in normal retail environments and would be suited to the location.

 

Ms Parish concluded by noting that good common practical sense had identified the location as a good fit for a Raeward Fresh outlet and that granting consent would be a good practical planning outcome. 

 

Ms Parish responded to questions in particular on the nature of the lease, the environments associated with other Raeward Fresh outlets and how it could be differentiated from a supermarket and retained in a produce market form.

 

Mr Allan then continued with his expert planning evidence on behalf of the applicant.  He commented that there was general agreement between his position and that of Mr Sycamore in relation to effects and as a result he had focused on the objectives and policies as this was where different conclusions were reached.  Mr Allan noted that the policy framework in his view was effects based and therefore he considered the determination in relation to effects was relevant to the objectives and policies assessment.

 

Mr Allan provided a detailed appraisal of the objectives and policies of the operative plan covering the relevant sustainability and industrial zones polices, identifying those objectives and policies where he disagreed with Mr Sycamore.  He advised on the proposed second generation plan and commented that he agreed with Mr Sycamore that the objectives and policies could be given only limited weight.  He noted that he had found the proposal at worst was inconsistent with one or two provisions of the operative plan.  Mr Allan considered that overall it was not inconsistent with the objectives and policies on the operative District Plan.

 

Mr Allan noted that he considered Mr Sycamores focus on plan integrity to be too narrow and his conclusion that the proposal is contrary to objectives and policies was not supported by an overall consideration of the purpose and intent of the plan.  He commented that he considered a finding that the proposal was contrary to objectives and policies was not supported by the effects based policy framework.

 

Mr Allan outlined draft conditions that he considered would ensure certainty for the type of retail activity to be operated on the site.  These included personalising of the consent so it would not attach to the land, and linking the proposed operation to the operation of the Foodstuffs distribution centre across the road.

 

Mr Allan responded to questions on the floor layout, reverse sensitivity, car parking, signage and the practicality of controls to ensure the intended high percentage of produce goods did not slip over time. 

 

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

 

Mr Sycamore reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing and commented that he wished to maintain his recommendation to decline consent. 

 

The Applicant’s Response

 

It was agreed that the applicant's right of reply would be provided to the Committee in writing.

 

The hearing adjourned at 1.10 pm and reconvened on Thursday 24 March 2016 at 10.00 am in the Plaza Meeting Room, Civic Centre.

 

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

 

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

 

        “That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

 

          The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the making of this ruling are as follows:

 

 

 

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.

Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

 

 

 

 

1

Resource Consent Application – 15 Midland Street, Dunedin

That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”

S 48(1)(d)

 

                    Motion carried

 

The meeting moved into non-public at 10.03 am.


MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, CIVIC CENTRE ON 24 MARCH 2016, COMMENCING AT 10.04 AM

 

PRESENT:                                       Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson) and Lee Vandervis and Commissioner Colin Weatherall

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE:                            John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor)

PART C:

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2015-354, 15 MIDLAND STREET, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant.  It was noted that a site visit was undertaken on 23 February 2016.

 

Decision

 

It was moved (Vandervis/Weatherall):

 

" That pursuant to Sections 34A(1) and 104B and after having regard to Part 2 matters and Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, and the relevant provisions of the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment of a wholesale and retail fresh produce market and café at 15 Midland Street, Dunedin, legally described as Lot 1 DP 12089 (Computer Freehold Register 454463), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:

 

1.    The proposal should be undertaken in general accordance with the relevant details and information submitted with resource consent application LUC-2015-354 received by the Council on 29 September 2015, the further information received on 9 November and 10 February 2016, and the evidence presented at the hearing, except where modified by the following conditions.

 

2.    The consent should be limited to the following activities:

 

a.      Raeward Fresh Market

b.      Reward Fresh Cafe

c.      Raeward Fresh Warehousing and storage Area

d.      Raeward Fresh Office and Administration area

e.      Warehousing and Storage for Foodstuffs Distribution Centre at 21 Midland Street

 

3.    The range of goods to be sold from the Raeward Fresh market were to be restricted to fresh produce, flowers, fresh meat and meat products.


 

4.    The ability to exercise the consent should be restricted to a Raeward Fresh Co-operative member of the Foodstuffs South Island Limited.

 

5.    The Consent should be valid only for as long as the Foodstuffs Distribution Centre at 21 Midland Street remains in operation. 

 

6.    The hours of operation were restricted to 8am to 7pm Monday to Sunday.

 

7.    The Raeward Fresh warehousing and storage area (approximately 397m2) and existing warehousing area (approximately 1,472 m2) should remain used for industrial or service activities.  No retail activity, except where it was permitted by the District Plan, should be established in these areas.

 

8.    All new vehicle accesses should be formed to the widths specified in the application and should be hard surfaced and adequately drained for their full duration. 

 

9.    The applicant should reinstate all redundant vehicle crossings adjacent to the site as footpath, kerb and channel.

 

10. Detailed engineering plans for all parking, site access, and manoeuvring areas should be submitted to the Group Manager Transport prior to construction for certification they were in accordance with the proposed plans.  The designs should incorporate appropriate pedestrian, traffic safety and mobility provisions within the site, as necessary.

 

11. The surface of all parking, associated access and manoeuvring areas should be formed, hard surfaced and adequately drained for their entirety, and parking spaces permanently marked in accordance with the approved plans.

 

12. The applicant should provide a minimum of 10 staff car parking spaces within the site, in the locations identified in figure 3.1 of the report by Abley Transportation Consultants dated 19 February 2016.

 

13. A covered cycle stand should be established within the site, and be located as close as practicable to the customer entrance to the store.

 

14. The proposed activity should not commence operation until all transportation-related conditions are completed.

 

15. An “Application for Water Supply” was to be submitted to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit to assess whether the current water connection was sized appropriately for the proposed activity. Details of how the proposed development was to be serviced for water should accompany the “Application for Water Supply”.


 

 

16. Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, water service connections should be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.

 

17. An RPZ backflow prevention device must be installed on the Midland Street water connection servicing the property.  The backflow prevention device must be installed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and inspected and approved by the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services. 

 

18. The external car parking areas should be illuminated at night to a minimum maintained level of 2 lux, with high uniformity during the hours of operation.  The applicant should ensure lighting installed on the site was shielded to avoid unnecessary light spill. 

 

19. Signage to be established on the site was to be in general accordance with the application plans.

 

20. Double glazing should be installed where any existing window was required to be replaced as part of the building refurbishment works.

 

21. Pursuant to Section 128(1) of the Resource Management Act the Consent Authority might review any condition of this within one year from the date of issue of the building consent for the development, and thereafter with one month of the anniversary of the date of issue to deal with any adverse effects on the environment which might arise from the exercise of the consent

 

Motion carried

 

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The Permitted Baseline and the Existing Environment

 

1      The Committee visited the site and noted that the subject site and surrounding area had an amenity that was consistent with a busy industrial zone that was predominantly occupied by service activities associated with storage and distribution.

 

2      The Committee accept that the range of uses in the wider area was mixed but it noted amenity levels are clearly low when compared to an activity zone.  Pedestrian activity in the area appeared to the Committee to be minimal.

 

3      The Committee agreed that the permitted baseline included a Garden Centre.  It noted the application of the baseline, although discretionary, was typically applied by the Council provided the result was not perverse or inappropriate.  In this case the Committee considered that application of the baseline was appropriate.  This meant that the effects associated with a permitted garden centre could be discounted when the effects of the proposed wholesale and retail produce market were assessed.

 

Effects 

 

4      The Committee accepted the evidence of both planners that if the baseline was applied the overall effects of the proposed activity overall would be minor.  As a consequence the Section 104D gateway test was passed and the Committee could consider granting consent to the proposal.

 

5      The Committee agreed that positive effects would accrue from the proposed development.  There would be investment in the buildings, construction activity and employment.  The Committee noted the site inspection showed that the existing warehouse appeared structurally sound and viable as a commercial warehouse.  The suggestion that it was dilapidated and in need of rebuilding appeared overstated.

 

6      The Committee noted that reverse sensitivity was a potential effects issue for the establishment of non-industrial uses in Industrial zones.  The applicant’s property manager had advised that Raeward Fresh activities had been located in areas with similar amenity levels without issue and the proposed Raeward Fresh was compatible.  The Committee noted that the majority of activity nearby was associated with storage and distribution.  It agreed that reverse sensitivity effects on a produce market activity were not likely to be significant and accepted that there was some buffering in this case.   The Committee also noted that a produce market was clearly less sensitive than a retail clothing shop.

 

7      The Committee observed that there was no suggestion by the planners that the proposal would have any significant distributional impact on activity zones or result in the loss of industrial land that was significant in effect.  It noted that larger fruit and vegetable stores or markets were often located at the edge of commercial zones.  The Committee also noted that historically wholesale produce markets were part of the activities which occurred in the area of the proposal and these was no suggestion that these were incompatible with other industrial and service activities in the zone. 

 

Objectives and Polices

 

8      The Committee accepted the evidence from Mr Sycamore and Mr Allan that only limited weighting should be applied to the proposed 2nd generation plan objectives and policies given that the rule provisions are subject to challenge and submissions are yet to be heard.  It did however note the intention of the second generation plan through its objectives and policies to establish a specific trade retail zone that does not include the site and a retail hierarchy based around the city centre.

 

9      In terms of the operative plan the Committee noted that the operative Plan establishes retail activity as a non-complying activity and that it provided for retail in other commercial zones.  This in the Committee’s view signalled a clear intention to limit retail activity in industrial zones to specific used such as garden centres and car yards and to activities that are integral and complementary to a permitted industrial or service activity. 


 

10    The Committee noted that there was a significant difference between the views of the Planners in relation to objectives and policies.  Mr Sycamore considered the proposal to be contrary to key sustainability and industrial zone objectives and policies whereas Mr Allan for the applicant only identified inconsistency with one or two provisions from the sustainability section of the plan.  After considering the objectives and policies and the evidence presented the Committee considered that the proposal could fall somewhere between these positions. 

 

11    The Committee observed that neither planner has considered the activity zone objectives and policies in the operative District Plan.  These were considered to have some relevance as the sustainability section sets up zones and provided for retail activities to establish in activity zones as a permitted activity. 

 

12    The Committee noted the submissions and evidence from the applicant that the Environment Court previously determined that the Industrial zone objectives and policies of the operative plan to be effects based.  This supported Mr Allan’s positon on Industrial zone objectives and policies to an extent.  Despite this, the suggestion that the proposal was “not inconsistent” with Policy 10.3.2 which sought to exclude activities not part of or associated with industrial activities from the Industrial 1 zone appeared to the Committee to be generous to the applicant’s positon. 

 

13    The Committee noted that the case law on the interpretation of contrary required the proposal to be repugnant or opposite to the objectives and policies when viewed as a whole.  The Committee considered that there were some clear inconsistencies with the policy framework of the operative plan but it accepted that this might not extend to the proposal being contrary to the operative District Plan in terms of being repugnant or opposite.  It noted that as the proposal passes the effects gateway it could consider granting the proposal even if it was contrary to objectives and policies.

 

14    The Committee considered the proposal was more inconsistent with the 2GP objectives and policies.   In particular policy 19.2.1.3 which was no longer linked to an explanation related to reverse sensitivity.  It did not agree with Mr Allan that the proposal was not inconsistent with the policy.  It also considered that the proposal was inconsistent with policies 19.2.1.5 and 19.2.1.6. It did however, accept that only very limited weight could be afforded to these objectives and policies in the Section 104 assessment.

 

15    While the Committee agrees that the proposal passes the effects gateway and might also pass the objectives and policy gateway it noted that consents can be declined on the basis of inconsistency with the objectives and policies following an assessment under Section 104 of the RMA.  It remained concerned that continual erosion of the Industrial 1 zone would have a negative planning outcome and therefore precedent was an important consideration.


 

Other Matters

 

16    In terms of precedent Mr Sycamore identifies that in his opinion the proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future retail applications in the Industrial 1 zone.  In his view it was not a true exception that was able to be distinguished from other retail uses such as supermarkets wanting to establish in the zone.

 

17    The applicant’s advice was that the precedent impact was overstated in this case.  At the hearing the applicant outlined case law for the Committee that indicated that precedent implications should be considered cautiously.   The applicant also had provided a range of conditions that the applicant argues would give the Council some comfort.  This included the personalising of the consent, the focus on fresh produce and the linking of the proposal to the ongoing operation of the neighbouring Foodstuffs distribution facility. 

 

18    The Committee accepted that the location of the Foodstuffs owned distribution centre across the road from the site and the formalised connection with the Raeward Fresh activity through consent conditions did provide a point of difference that would not be readily available to many other retailers.  It also noted the historical presence of produce markets in the area.  The Committee was satisfied that if the consent was appropriately tailored this would likely ensure that a plethora of retail activity applications would not result from the approval of this application.  

 

Determination

 

19    The Committee noted that historically wholesale produce markets were part of the activities which occurred in the area and these were compatible with other industrial and service activities in the zone.  However, it had concerns that the proposal was not just for a produce market as it would also involve the sale of a range of other goods including liquor.  While the applicant contends that it was not a supermarket the proposed design and layout and the photography provided suggested it strongly resembled the produce section of supermarket with additional convenience items including liquor and a range of groceries designed to extend the range of goods sold. 

 

20    The Committee noted that had the proposal been for a grocery store or a liquor outlet at the relatively central location within the Industrial 1 zone it was likely that consent would have been refused.

 

21    The Committee appreciated the applicant’s attempts to reduce the potential for an undesirable precedent through the use of conditions.  In particular the personalising of the consent to Foodstuffs and the operational link to the distribution centre activity.  The Committee remained concerned about the range for goods involved and the monitoring of consent conditions.  It considered that a simpler more distinguishing approach would be to restrict the sale to produce, meat and flowers and for the other items not to be sold on the premises.

 

22    The Committee therefore considered that the proposal should be granted subject to restrictions on the range of goods that can be sold.  The wholesale and retail produce market elements were considered to be compatible and given the conditions this approach avoided a potential precedent for a wide range of retail activities to be established in the industrial zone.

 

The meeting ended at 11.10 am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

 


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

Hearings Committee - 7 March 2016

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 7 March 2016 as a correct record (8 Kilgour Street).

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

A

Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 7 March 2016

54

 

 



 

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

 

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Monday 07 March 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

 

PRESENT

 

Chairperson

Cr Lee Vandervis

 

 

Cr Andrew Noone

 

 

Commissioner Colin Weatherall

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Amy Young (Processing Planner), Barry Knox (Landscape Architect) and Aidan Battrick (Parks Officer – Trees).

 

Governance Support Officer      Wendy Collard

 

 

PART A:

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-507, 8 KILGOUR STREET, ROSLYN, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee considered an application to allow the removal of a scheduled tree T663 at 8 Kilgour Street, Roslyn, Dunedin which was processed on a notified basis in accordance with section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

The committee was required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

The applicant was represented by:

 

·           Craig Smith (Applicant)

·           Peter Waymouth (Consulting Arborist)

 

There was one submitter present at the hearing:

 

·           Dr Lauren Weaver

 

Procedural Issues

 

A procedural issue was raised in relation to whether Dr Lauren Weaver was an affected party or a submitter.  The Committee Advisor (John Sule) noted that a letter of support from Dr Weaver had been provided with the application and the application form identified her as a party who had provided an affected party approval.  Mr Sule commented that on this basis she was identified as an affected party in the Section 42A report and following the release of the report, information was received which indicated that Ms Weaver wanted to submit.   He commented that to resolve any uncertainty in regards to the affected party status and her ability to submit the processing planner Amy Young had requested that Dr Weaver withdraw her affected party status.  Mr Sule advised that this was undertaken by Ms Weaver in writing prior to the hearing. 

 

Mr Sule advised that the withdrawal would now enable her to either be considered as a submitter or to make submissions in support of the applicant.  He explained that if Ms Weaver was an affected party the effects of an activity on her site could not be taken into account by the Committee which included the positive effects of removal of the tree.  The Committee noted the withdrawal of the affected party status and resolved to accept the original information provided with the application and the additional written materials as a submission in support of the application.  

 

It was moved (Noone/Weatherall):

 

"That the Committee accepts the submission from Lauren Weaver under Section 37 of the Resource Management Act.”

 

Motion carried

 

There was a discussion on the STEM assessment which was included in the agenda and it was confirmed that the STEM assessment was in its final form and not in draft as indicated in the agenda.

 

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

 

The Planning Officer (Amy Young) spoke to a summary of her report and provided an overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received.  Mrs Young commented that she accepted the STEM assessment provided by the Council’s arborist and Landscape Architect which indicated the tree was significant and worthy of inclusion on the schedule of significant trees.  She commented that its removal would have an adverse effect on the amenity values of the wider environment and noted that while there was an identified risk issue with the tree in relation to one of its larger limbs that mitigation options were available. 

 

Mrs Young advised that overall she considered the matter was finely balanced due to the proximity of the tree to dwellings 8 and 10 Kilgour Street and the risk and nuisance issues. She advised that she recommended that the consent be declined as adverse effects appeared minor and the risk of limb failure could be mitigated.

 

The Applicant’s Presentation

 

Craig Smith spoke in support of his application and commented that he felt that the tree was too large for the site.  Mr Smith advised that following Mr Waymouth's assessment and report he had serious concerns about the safety of the tree which included for people and property on his site and neighbouring sites.  He provided background on to the purchase of the property and advised that this was not a short term project for him.  Mr Smith commented that he was not set on removing the tree at the time of purchase however the advice he had received and concerns regarding ongoing costs had resulted in him making an application for the removal of the tree.

 

Peter Waymouth provided on his background and experience and discussed his pre-circulated evidence.  Mr Waymouth commented on the STEM assessment he had undertaken and identified the reasons for the differences between his assessment and the assessment undertaken by the Council’s experts.  He advised that his assessment score came in lower because of a difference of opinion in relation in relation to visibility and frequency.  Mr Waymouth advised that he had visited the area and found that there were at least 8 Red Beech trees in the neighbourhood.  The largest one he identified was on Ross Street which is not listed in Schedule 25.3. 


 

Mr Waymouth provided a risk assessment and options for mitigation of effects in the report; however he noted that the mitigation would come at a large cost.

 

Mr Waymouth responded to questions on the STEM assessment system, risk of limb failure, mitigation options and costs and the historic pruning which had resulted in the current form of the tree.  He commented that cabling would be complicated and not a full proof mitigation option.  Mr Waymouth considered that pruning and cabling would not likely lead to a change in the STEM score he had submitted.  He also agreed that removal of the limb with the included union would have a negative impact on the health of the tree.

 

Submitter

 

Dr Lauren Weaver provided a background to her purchase of her property.  She outlined that her principal concern which was the risk of tree limb failure and the damage that it could cause to her living area, hallway and back door to her property.  Dr Weaver commented that pathway along the side of house was used frequently.  She advised that the tree was creating nuisance issues in relation to the guttering for her dwelling. 

 

In response to questions, Dr Weaver commented that her concrete path was cracked and uplifted which she assumed as due to the tree.  She advised that while there was a lot of tree debris in her gutters and shading on the side of the house that faced 8 Kilgour Street safety was her main concern. 

 

Council Officers Evidence

 

The Landscape Architect (Barry Knox) commented on his evidence and STEM process.  Mr Knox commented that it was a process used throughout NZ which attempted objective analysis of matters that were subjective in some cases.  He advised that he agreed with the Committee’s observation that the STEM analysis did not allow for negative attributes associated with a tree to be taken into account.  In response to a question Mr Knox commented that he could not be sure whether any cabling used to reduce the risk of limb failure would have an impact on amenity values. 

 

In response to a question regarding the difference in the STEM assessment scores Mr Knox confirmed he was not surprised by the difference in the STEM assessments.  It was noted by Mr Sule that although the STEM system did not take into account negative factors for the purposes of listing trees on the schedule, the consent process was discretionary.  Therefore the Committee could take into account the negatives in the weighing up the application to remove the tree.

 

The Parks Officer – Trees (Aidan Battrick) responded to questions on the STEM assessment and commented that in respect of the score assigned for rarity, he noted that he used the schedule as the basis for determining frequency and the schedule covered the entire district.  He advised that he agreed it would be possible for a tree to be frequent in one area but uncommon over the district in terms of schedule listings.  He indicated that he was comfortable with the assessment he had made and that he noted that pruning or cabling work on the tree would be unlikely to alter the STEM score that he had assigned to the tree. 

 

In response to a question, regarding pruning to the boundary to assist with mitigating effects on 10 Kilgour Street and the likely effect on the STEM analysis Mr Battrick advised that it would have an effect on the form.  He commented that an application to prune to the boundary would not meet the instant pruning consent approval criteria as he considered that the effects would be more than minor. 

 

In response to questions on removal of the limb that had a higher risk of failure Mr Battrick commented that he agreed with Peter Waymouth that removal of the major limb with the included join would be likely to have a significant impact on the health of the tree.  He advised that it would make the tree more susceptible to disease. 

 

 

 

It was moved (Vandervis/Noone)

 

"That the meeting be adjourned to 10.20 am."

 

Motion carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.10 am and reconvened at 10.20 am.

 

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

 

Mrs Young commented that she had considered the evidence and the submissions at the hearing and she accepted that the principal concern for the applicant and the submitter was safety.  She advised that she acknowledged the high costs of mitigating the risk of limb failure but stated that she wished to maintain her recommendation to decline consent to the proposal.  Mrs Young commented that she accepted that the decision was finely balanced. 

 

The Applicant’s Response

 

Mr Smith reiterated that the safety issues for 8 and 10 Kilgour Street were his main concern.  He advised that he considered that pruning would not mitigate these issues in the long term or would affect the health of the tree.  Mr Smith commented that he considered that the costs required for the possible mitigation of safety risk by cabling were significant and not reasonable. 

 

Mr Smith commented that STEM assessment technique did not take into account any negative amenity effects.  In regard to the visual aspects to the STEM assessment he advised that the tree was located in a dip and not highly visible.  Mr Smith commented that if these matters were taken into account it would reduce the STEM analysis by 12 points which would bring it below the required level for inclusion on the schedule.  The reduction did not take into account the negative aspects of the tree which were significant. 

 

Mr Smith commented that there were no submissions in support of keeping the tree and that the tree was younger than the dwellings. He requested that the Committee approve the application to remove the tree. 

 

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

 

It was moved (Vandervis/Noone):

 

        “That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

 

          The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the making of this ruling are as follows:

 


 

 

 

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.

Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

 

 

 

 

1

Resource Consent Application – 8 Kilgour Street, Roslyn, Dunedin

That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”

S 48(1)(d)

 

                   Motion carried

 

The meeting moved into non-public at 10.30 pm.


MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 7 MARCH 2016, COMMENCING AT 10.35 AM

 

PRESENT:                                       Councillors Lee Vandervis (Chairperson), Andrew Noone and Commissioner Colin Weatherall

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE:                            John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

 

PART C:

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2015-507, 8 KILGOUR STREET, ROSLYN, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant.  A site visit was carried out on 7 March 2016.

 

Decision

 

It was moved (Noone/Weatherall):

 

"That, pursuant to section 34(1) and 104B, and after having regard to Part 2 Matters, sections 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City Council granted consent for a discretionary activity being the removal of tree T663, located at 8 Kilgour Street, Dunedin legally described as part Lot 2 DP 4723 held in Computer Freehold Register OT5D/401 subject to the conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act as shown below.

 

1.      The proposal should be undertaken in general accordance with the relevant details and information submitted with resource consent application LUC-2015-507 received by the Council on 22 October 2015 and the evidence presented at the hearing, except where modified by the following conditions.

 

2.      The removal of tree T663 should be in accordance with arboricultural best practice and undertaken by a suitably qualified person.

 

3.      The consent holder should advise the Council in writing of the date that T663 was to be removed. The written advice should be provided to the Council at least five (5) working days prior to the removal of the tree.

 

4.      All waste generated by the removal works should not cause a nuisance and should be suitably disposed of within 7 days of the completion of the removal works.

 

5.      The person exercising the consent should take all reasonable measures to ensure the use of machinery for the removal of T663 should be limited to the times set out below and should comply with the following noise limits (dBA);


 

Time Period

Weekdays

 

(dBA)

Saturdays

 

(dBA)

Leq

Lmax

Leq

Lmax

0730-1800

75

90

75

90

1800-2000

70

85

45

75

 

         Sound levels should be measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics – Construction noise.  No work was undertaken on Sundays or Public Holidays nor between 8.00pm to 7.30am Weekdays or Saturdays."

 

Motion carried

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

1      The Committee accepted that the STEM assessment system was somewhat subjective and that the score would vary from practitioner to practitioner as the result of that subjectivity.  It noted that one STEM assessment found that the tree was marginally above the 147 threshold for inclusion on the schedule of significant trees and that the other assessment was under the threshold necessary for inclusion on the schedule.  It found that level of significance for Tree T663 was at the lower end of the scale for trees that were listed on the schedule.  The Committee appreciated the sincere and considered manner in which expert arboricultural evidence was provided at the hearing. 

 

2      The Committee noted that the adverse effects of the tree were minor in relation to shading, light penetration, nuisance and property damage at the time, however, the proximity of the tree to dwellings at 8 & 10 Kilgour Street was of concern to the Committee in terms of future growth of the tree and reduced scope for mitigation of adverse effects.

 

3      The Committee accepted advice that the pruning of the tree in the past had resulted in a form that was not entirely typical of the species.  It accepted the evidence that there was a risk from an included union on a major limb of the tree.  The form of the tree and included union were clearly observed on site.  

 

4      It was clear to the Committee that safety was the major issue of concern for the applicant and the submitter in support.  It noted that in previous decisions of the Environment Court in relation to trees that safety was an important consideration.  It noted that the tree was located close to dwellings and the tree had an identified flaw that increased the risk of limb failure.  Removal of the large at risk limb was likely to have a significant adverse effect on the health of the tree.  The Committee accepted that mitigation was possible from cabling but that mitigation was not full proof and does not entirely remove the risk of failure.  It also came at a significant cost for the applicant.

 

5      It noted that the tree provided amenity benefit to Kilgour Street and beyond but the Committee considered that its amenity benefit was relatively confined due to its location and topography. 


 

6      The Committee considered that the proposal was inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the operative District Plan which are given more weight that the proposed plan.  This was to be expected as the framework promoted the protection of significant trees. The proposal was consistent with Regional Policy Statement for Otago.

 

7      The Committee agreed with Ms Young that the matter was finely balanced.  The tree provided an amenity benefit beyond the site and had a pleasant appearance from Kilgour Street, but the Committee noted that the amenity benefit was relatively confined.  Having weighed the relevant matters the Committee considered that that the risk of limb failure and the significant cost of mitigating the risk were compelling.  The close proximity of the tree to dwellings also meant that nuisance issues were likely to increase over time as the tree grew and these effects would be difficult to mitigate. 

 

8      The Committee had concluded that the granting of the consent would be consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

 

The meeting ended at 11.17 am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

 

 


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

Hearings Committee - 18 March 2016

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 18 March 2016 as a correct record (97 Filleul Street, Dunedin).

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

A

Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 18 March 2016

63

 

 



 

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

 

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Friday 18 March 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

 

PRESENT

 

Chairperson

Cr Andrew Noone

 

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Cr Andrew Whiley

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Darryl Sycamore (Processing Officer) and Peter Christos (Urban Designer).

 

Governance Support Officer      Jennifer Lapham

 

 

 

PART A:

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2012-468, 97 FILLEUL STREET, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee considered an application for the construction of 25 apartments at 97 Filleul Street, Dunedin.  The Committee were required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

The applicant was represented by:

 

·           Neil Lyons (Co-Developer)

·           Jamie Lyons (Co-Developer and Project Manager)

·           Michael Ovens (Co-developer and Architect to project)

·           Nigel Bryce – (Consultant Planner)

·           Shelly Chadwick (Legal Counsel)

·           Stephen Macknight (Structural Engineer)

·           Bill Cadzow (Shade Modeller for W J Cadzow Limited)

 

There were five submitters present at the hearing.

 

·           Rod McLeod

·           Lincoln Darling

·           Ken O'Connell

·           Sergio Salis

·           Christopher Robertson

·           Len Andersen (Legal Counsel for Mr Robertson and Mr Salis)

·           Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner for Mr Robertson and Mr Salis)

 

Procedural Issues

 

The Chairperson advised that the hearing would adjourn prior to hearing the submissions and evidence of Mr Robertson and Mr Salis to allow their Legal Counsel to be present.

 

 

Presentation of Planner's Report

 

The Processing Planner (Darryl Sycamore) provided an overview of his report and commented that he considered the proposal would create only localised effects, and raised no issue of precedent.  Mr Sycamore advised that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline and disregard the effects of an 11m high building covering the site. 

 

Mr Sycamore commented that he acknowledged the impacts on the owners and occupiers of Vero House and Bracken Restaurant but he noted if the baseline was applied the effects would be minor.  He advised that the Council’s Urban Designer supported the proposal and he did not consider a verandah was required at the location as there were no other verandahs on the street.  Mr Sycamore commented that the proposed apartment building was supported by the objectives and policies of the both the operative and proposed District Plans and it would have positive effects on street amenity values. 

 

Mr Sycamore submitted that he recommended that, subject to conditions, consent be granted.

 

Applicants Presentation

 

Shelley Chadwick (Legal Counsel) tabled and spoke to her evidence.  Ms Chadwick provided clarification on the issue of individual ownership for some units, noting some might be privately owned and that the apartments might undergo a unit-title subdivision once completed.  Ms Chadwick outlined the various legal considerations that applied to the Committee’s consideration of the application.  She emphasised that then application of the permitted baseline was appropriate in this case and identified its parameters.  Ms Chadwick advised that in her opinion the proposal met the Section 104D gateway test and that it was appropriate for the Committee to approve the application.

 

Ms Chadwick addressed the concerns of submitters regarding the requirement to access Vero House during construction work and the approval from the owners of Vero House for any changes to the retaining wall.  She commented that the boundaries were complex and it would be preferable to work with the neighbours for the establishment of a better outcome.  Ideally the old retaining wall would be removed and a new, more stable one would be constructed.

 

Ms Chadwick reiterated that the project was quite distinct from the issues that occurred during the previous development at 93 Filleul Street.  She commented that there was a high degree of certainty for management of the project as the land stability was well understood in contrast to the earlier development.

 

Michael Ovens (Co-developer and Architect) tabled and spoke to the design options for the proposal.  Mr Ovens detailed how the roofline would relate to the adjoining buildings and emphasised the benefit of the centralised court-yard.  He commented on the finishing treatments of the lower layer to provide separation and rustication of the building which would create a better design outcome.  He noted that this approach could be applied to the southern façade facing the front courtyard of 95 Filleul Street to improve the look of the facade.

 

Bill Cadzow (Shade Modeller) commented on the shade diagrams that had been provided in the application and stated how the proposed building would sit in relation to a building of the permitted 11m height.  Mr Cadzow detailed the effects of topography and how topography contributes to shading issues.

 

Mr Cadzow commented on how the existing buildings on 30 & 34 London Street obscured the sun when the sun was low in the sky.  He emphasised that the buildings at 30 & 34 London Street resulted in greater shading issues on adjoining properties than the proposed apartments.

 

Stephen Macknight (Structural Engineer) responded to questions on site stability and construction methods.  He reiterated that the subject site has differing geology compared to the site at 93 Filleul Street.  In terms of complexity, Mr Macknight assured the Committee the subject site comprised more stable soils.

 

Mr Macknight provided detail on how the retaining walls could be underpinned to ensure stability on adjoining sites.  In response to questions on how the retaining structure would be constructed against the vacant car park to the east, Mr Macknight detailed the process and options and reiterated that the required works occur frequently elsewhere and can be readily engineered.

 

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)

 

"That the meeting adjourn at 10.59 for 15 minutes."

 

Motion carried.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.59 and reconvened at 11.16 am.

 

Jamie Lyons (Co-Developer and Project Manager) commented on his experience with property development and advised that he would be the project manager for the development.  Mr Lyons commented on the car-parking and storage arrangements in the basement.

 

In response to questions, Mr Lyons provided clarification on how the 2012 application at 93 Filleul Street differed from the current application.

 

Nigel Bryce (Consultant Planner) tabled and spoke to his planning evidence.  Mr Bryce commented that he considered that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline to the assessment of effects.  He commented on the effects issues in detail noting the steps the applicant had taken to address effects issues which included the construction phase issues that were experienced with the development at 93 Filleul Street.  Mr Bryce emphasised that the range of adverse effects would be minor overall if the baseline was applied. 

 

Mr Bryce also comprehensively assessed the proposal in terms of objectives and policies of the operative and proposed plans and he considered the proposal under Part 2 of the Act.  He concluded by noting that in his assessment there was no impediment to the granting consent to the proposal.

 

Submissions

 

Rod MacLeod spoke to his submission in opposition to the proposal and commented that he appeared to be the forgotten neighbour.  Mr MacLeod commented that he considered the additional height of the building adjoining his property and the corresponding increase in bulk would impact any future development of the land at 333A George Street.  He responded to questions in particular on the management of construction phase effects which included the issues his tenants had to endure with the previous development at 93 Filleul Street.

 

Mr MacLeod acknowledged a building might be established on the site, and held the view the proposal was simply too large for the setting.  His greatest concern related to shading onto his land and also the effects associated with construction.


Council Officers Evidence

 

The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) spoke to his memorandum and commented that in his opinion the development would fit well onto the site and allow for the additional height above 11m to be absorbed into the setting.

 

Mr Christos commented on how the additional height of the building would alter light quality, and how it might affect the adjoining properties.  He advised that in his view light quality would change, but the effects occurring would be similar to a permitted building on the site.

 

Mr Christos discussed how the proposal will interact with those properties fronting onto Cambria Place. 

 

It was moved Noone/Vandervis

 

"That the meeting be adjourned at 2.10 pm."

 

               Motion carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.10 pm and reconvened on Wednesday 23 March 2016 at 2.00 pm.

 

       

 

MEMBERSHIP:                                        Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley

 

IN ATTENDANCE:                            John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Darryl Sycamore (Planner), Jennifer Lapham (Governance Support Officer) and Arlene Goss (Governance Support Officer)

 

Submissions (continued)

 

Mr Lincoln Darling expressed concern at the geotechnical issues and commented that only one drill hole had been carried out to confirm local geology on the site.  He suggested more drilling to define the soil stability would be appropriate.

 

Mr Darling commented that the previous development by the applicants at 93 Filleul Street had created a number of issues both in terms of land stability and also the ability for the restaurant to operate.  Mr Darling advised that he wanted reassurance that the restaurant would not be affected by construction noise or vehicles occupying the frontage outside the restaurant.  Mr Darling emphasised that should consent be granted that improved communication between the developer and adjoining properties would be helpful.

 

Mr Ken O’Connell spoke to his submissions and advised that his restaurant was a fine dining restaurant where customers expected a pleasant dining environment.

 

Mr O’Connell advised that his main concern related to noise and in particular construction noise.  He commented that tradesmen parking vehicles in front of his business during lunch and dinner periods was also problematic as it made the operation of his business challenging.  Mr O'Connell outlined the business disruption issues with the recent development at 93 Filleul Street undertaken by the same developers.  Mr O’Connell requested, that should consent be granted, a number of car-parks were provided for tradesmen beyond his restaurant.


 

Len Andersen (Legal Counsel for Sergio Salis and Christopher Robertson) commented on his concern about deficiencies in the provision of the information which related to a number of matters which included earthworks and noise. 

 

Mr Andersen commented on the required earthworks and advised that he considered the lack of detail prevented adequate assessment.  He commented that he considered there were real concerns that were not able to be addressed by conditions and the lack detail prevented his clients from submitting on important design issues.  Mr Andersen commented that in his opinion the earthworks risks were greater than the applicant had suggested and he commented that liability insurance was not sufficient to address these issues.  He suggested that the Committee should consider imposing a $10,000,000 bond if it was contemplating approval of the application.  Mr Andersen stated that the developer would need to obtain permission to access his clients land to construct the retaining walls.  He reiterated his clients simply did not want the apartment building built.

 

Mr Andersen commented that he felt that application of the permitted baseline was not appropriate in this case and that the effects on his client should be considered.  He noted that the adverse effects on their specialist dental practices were significant.  Mr Andersen also argued that the provision of a verandah was an important consideration under the provisions of the operative Plan.  He considered that the Council planner’s conclusion regarding consistency with Policy 9.3.3 were erroneous.

 

Mr Andersen also disputed whether the proposal was a residential development arguing that it should be assessed as a commercial residential activity observing that the car parking should be assessed on a commercial residential basis.

 

Mr Andersen requested that the consent be declined.

 

Christopher Robertson commented that he strongly opposed the development and advised that he considered the adverse effects would be significant. 

 

Mr Robertson clarified that he practised dentistry on the ground floor of his building which translated to the first floor of the proposed building.  He advised that he looked out directly over the site, where the glazing on his building was approximately 3m from the proposed building and that he was concerned about the quality of light and ability to carry out his specialist dentistry work.  Mr Robertson did not accept a white wall on the proposed building would alleviate any lighting concerns.

 

Sergio Salis spoke to his concerns regarding the proposal and in particular the effects including impact on natural light and how that might affect his specialist dental work. 

 

Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner for Christopher Robertson and Sergio Salis) tabled and spoke to his planning evidence.  Mr Anderson questioned whether the proposed building would enhance amenity values and commented that if the community received no benefit from the outcome, then the consent should not be granted.  He advised that in his view the amenity values of the zone were not correctly assessed by Mr Sycamore as a verandah was not included in the proposal.  As the frontage provided no pedestrian shelter, he considered amenity values would not be enhanced.

 

Mr Anderson commented that he considered that the baseline should not be applied. He reiterated applying the permitted baseline to any decision making was discretionary and the decision to apply the baseline was a critical decision.  In his view, a building complying with the permitted baseline was impossible to construct on the site.  Therefore, the baseline should not be applied and the effects of the entire building should be considered. 


 

 

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

 

Mr Sycamore reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining his recommendation to grant consent.  He commented that if the baseline was applied he considered that the effects of the proposal would be minor.

 

Mr Sycamore emphasised that a verandah could be erected on the building, but noted the Council’s Urban Designer did not support the concept.

 

He continued to recommend the application be granted subject to conditions of consent.

 

 

Applicant's Right of Reply

 

It was agreed that the applicant's right of reply would be provided to the Committee in writing.

 

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

 

It was moved (Noone/Whiley):

 

        “That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.

 

          The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the making of this ruling are as follows:

 

 

 

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.

Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.

 

 

 

 

1

Resource Consent Application –97 Filleul Street, Dunedin

That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”

S 48(1)(d)

 

                   Motion carried

 

The meeting moved into non-public at 4.45 pm

 


MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 18 MARCH 2016, COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM

 

PRESENT:                                       Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley

 

IN ATTENDANCE:                            John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)

 

 

PART C:

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION SUB-2015-468 AND LUC-2015-468, 97 FILLEUL STREET, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee gave consideration to the evidence heard, the relevant statutory and plan provisions, and the principle issues in contention and also undertook a site visit.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5.00 pm and reconvened on Thursday 7 April 2016 at 2.00 pm.

 

Decision

 

It was moved (Vandervis/Whiley):

 

"That pursuant to Section 34A(1) and 104B and after having regard to Part 2 matters and Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, and the relevant provisions of the Dunedin City District Plan and the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a non-complying activity being the establishment of a 25 unit residential apartment building with 10 on-site car parks and its use for residential activity at 97 Filleul Street, Dunedin, legally described as Lots 8 & 9 Deposited Plan 1119, held in Computer Freehold Registers OT98/82 and OT98/83, subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act as shown below:,

 

Conditions:

1       The proposed activity should be undertaken in general accordance with the site plan, elevations and the information provided with the revised resource consent application received by the Council on 3 February 2016, and the evidence and submissions provided at the hearing, except where modified by the following conditions.

 

2       The consent holder should undertake all construction related activities in accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted as part of the application.  In addition the consent holder should provide the following construction related information:

 

a)     Details of the measures to be taken to manage erosion and sediment-laden stormwater run-off during the construction phase. 

 

b)     Details of all traffic management measure related to the parking of construction vehicles, delivery and unloading areas and this should include details of the location of parking and loading area that were to remain in place during the construction phase; and

 

c)      Details of consultation undertaken with the owners and occupiers of 95 Filleul Street, 34 London Street and the car park at 333A George Street in relation to the Construction Management Plan and the responses to any issues raised regarding the report required under Condition 3 below.

 

3       Prior to the commencement of any development works on the site the consent holder should submit a geotechnical/engineering report to the Resource Consents Manager prepared by a suitably qualified professional.  The report should confirm the foundation depths of existing structures on adjoining sites and assesses the potential for instability on adjoining properties during construction works.  The report should detail a best practice specification for managing the construction works to ensure the stability of adjoining sites throughout the construction period which included the management of temporary excavation slopes.

 

4       Prior to any development works commencing on the site the report required in Condition 3 above should be subject to an independent peer review from a suitably qualified professional.  The report and the independent peer review were to be provided to the Resource Consents Manager, and the owners and occupiers of 95 Filleul Street, 34 London Street and 333A George Street. 

 

5       The best practice specification identified in the report required under condition 3 should be implemented as specified in the report throughout the construction period and the works were to be supervised by appropriately qualified persons.

 

6       No earthworks might be undertaken until building consent had been granted.

 

7       Third party liability insurance which identifies and protects nearby structures should be obtained and a letter of confirmation from the insurer must be forwarded to the adjoining landowners and the Council’s Resource Consents Manger at least five working days prior to commencing any excavations.

 

8       All measures (including dampening of loose soil) should be undertaken to ensure that dust, resulting from the proposed earthworks, does not escape the property boundary.

 

9       Any redundant vehicle crossing or parts thereof, along the frontage of the site should be reinstated as footpath, kerb, and channel at the applicant’s cost.

 

10     The surface of all parking, associated access and manoeuvring areas should be formed, hard surfaced and adequately drained for their entirety, and parking spaces permanently marked.

 

11     The exterior wall surfaces on the northern and southern facades were to be painted in a light colour and finish that maximises light reflection. 

 

12     Prior to development works commencing on the site the consent holder should submit final design details for the southern elevation of the proposed development to the Resource Consent’s Manager for approval.  The final design details were to ensure the southern façade is provided with a greater level of architectural detail.  This was not to be achieved through a painted surface.  Additional detailing should be applied to the lower section of the façade where it would be most noticeable at the adjoining footpath and from the front yard of 95 Filleul Street. 

 

13     The activity authorised by the consent should produce no greater than 8 lux of light onto any other site used for residential activity during night time hours.

 

14     The consent holder should provide documentation to Council demonstrating compliance with the acoustic and ventilation requirements outlined in Rule 9.5.2(x) of the Dunedin City District Plan prior to any works being undertaken on the site.  The information should be supplied either at the time of applying for building consent, or alternatively, can be submitted to Council’s Resource Consents Manager by email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz prior to the building consent being lodged for approval.

 

15     The consent holder should ensure noise from activity taking place on the site would not exceed the performance standard set out in Rule 21.5.1 of the operative District Plan as at 1 April 2016.  Prior to the implementation of the consent holder should submit to the Resource Consents Manger an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic professional confirming that all heating and ventilation equipment to be established on the site would comply with the relevant noise limits in Rule 21.5.1. 

 

16     All construction noise should comply with the following noise limits as per New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999:

 

Time of Week

Time Period

Leq (dBA)

L max(dBA)

Weekdays

0730-1800

75

90

1800-2000

70

85

2000-0630

45

75

Saturdays

0730-1800

75

90

1800-2000

45

75

 

17     An “Application for Water Supply” was to be submitted to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit for approval to establish a new water connection for the development.  Details of how the proposed development was to be serviced for water should accompany the “Application for Water Supply”.

 

18     Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, water service connections should be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.

 

19     The new water service connection should have a water meter installed.

 

 

20     An RPZ backflow prevention device must be installed on the Filleul Street water connection servicing the building.  The backflow prevention device must be installed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and inspected and approved by the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services.

 

21     If the consent holder:

 

(a)    discovered koiwi tangata (human skeletal remains), waahi taoka (resources of importance), waahi tapu (places or features of special significance) or other Maori artefact material,  the consent holder should without delay:

(i)     notify the Consent Authority, Tangata whenua and Heritage New Zealand and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand Police.

(ii)    stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery to allow a site inspection by Heritage New Zealand and the appropriate runanga and their advisors, who should determine whether the discovery was likely to be extensive, if a thorough site investigation was required, and whether an Archaeological Authority was required.

Any koiwi tangata discovered should be handled and removed by tribal elders responsible for the tikanga (custom) appropriate to its removal or preservation.  Site work should recommence following consultation with the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand, Tangata whenua, and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand Police, provided that any relevant statutory permissions had been obtained.

 

(b)    discovers any feature or archaeological material that predated 1900, or heritage material, or disturbs a previously unidentified archaeological or heritage site, the consent holder should without delay:

(i)     stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery or disturbance; and

(ii)    advise the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand, and in the case of Maori features or materials, the Tangata whenua, and if required, should make an application for an Archaeological Authority pursuant to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014; and

(iii)   arrange for a suitably qualified archaeologist to undertake a survey of the site.

Site work should recommence following consultation with the Consent Authority.

 

 

Reasons for this Decision

 

The Permitted Baseline and the Existing Environment

1      The Committee visited the site and neighbouring sites including Vero House, Bracken Restaurant and the car park below the site.  It observed that the subject site and surrounding area had an amenity that is consistent with a commercial environment at the fringe of the city centre.  The Committee noted that the receiving environment included two multi-storey buildings to the north of the subject site, a villa containing a restaurant 95 Filleul Street to the south of the site and residential activity across the road to the West. 

2      The Committee closely considered the permitted baseline arguments in respect of the evidence and submissions it had received.  Mr Bryce for the applicant and the Council’s Planner Mr Sycamore both considered it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline.  They considered that an 11m high building with a verandah built to the boundaries of the site and used for a permitted residential activity was a permitted non-fanciful activity.  They considered that the effects of an 11m high building could therefore be disregarded when assessing the effects of the proposed building.  If this was accepted by the Committee it was the only the effects of the proposed building beyond the baseline the Committee must assess when considering the significance of the effects.  Conrad Anderson did not support the application of the Permitted Baseline.  He applied a very detailed approach to the baseline assessment noting that in his view it was not economically viable nor technically possible to build to all boundaries due to the positon of an existing retaining wall.  On that basis he considered it was not appropriate to apply the permitted baseline. 

3      In his legal submissions Len Andersen noted that the application of the permitted baseline was discretionary and he argued it was not appropriate to apply the permitted baseline to the effects assessment and disregard the effects on his clients.  Mr Andersen noted that the required excavations and the fact that a smaller building would not be economically viable indicated that the permitted baseline was not realistic.  Ms Chadwick submitted that the plan contemplates an 11m tall box built to the boundaries as a permitted activity and that it was appropriate to apply the baseline.  Ms Chadwick provided a copy of a high court decision (Empire Entertainment Ltd CIV-2010-404-002832) in support of the applicants positon on the permitted baseline in the written right of reply. 

4      The information and the evidence and submissions at the hearing were closely considered.  The Committee noted that the application of the baseline was discretionary.  In this case the Committee considered that the application of the baseline was appropriate.  Buildings up to 11m in height were anticipated in the Central Activity zone of the city and were a permitted activity on this site.  A new building for residential use was considered by the Committee to be a non-fanciful use of the site providing a relevant comparison with the applicant’s proposal.  It was noted that an apartment building for residential activity was recently constructed at 93 Filleul Street.  It did not agree with the very technical positon promoted Conrad Anderson on the application of the baseline.  The Committee did not consider it technically impossible to build to the boundaries of the site as a permitted activity.  Also it considered issues of alleged financial viability were not a relevant consideration when considering if there was a non-fanciful permitted activity that could take place on the site.  In this case building to the northern boundary through a replacement retaining wall could occur but that was being opposed by the owners of Vero House.  The Committee also noted that as the site was already excavated to an extent that the additional earthworks proposed were not significant. 

5      As the application of the permitted baseline had been accepted by the Committee as appropriate, the assessment of effects has been considered by the Committee with the effects of an 11m high building on the site being disregarded.

Effects

6      The Committee accepted the expert evidence of Mr Cadzow on the shading effects.  The Committee accepted that there would be shading effects beyond the permitted baseline but it considered these shading effects would be minor.  The site at 95 Filleul Street would be affected but not in a way that was significantly different to that which could result from a permitted building.  It noted the building would be a full floor higher in the rear court yard area but that the area was currently shaded by the existing building and would be shaded by a permitted 11m high building.  The effects of the additional bulk on the rear courtyard area were not considered to be significant.  There would be increased shading of the site at 333A George Street to the east owned by Mr McLeod.  Again the Committee considered the effects on the site would be minor in comparison to a permitted development.  In relation to Vero House the additional shading effects beyond the baseline would be minor.

7      The bulk of the proposed building would clearly have a dramatic effect on Vero House which enjoys an open outlook from the tenancies facing south and to the east.  However, if the effects which arose from a permitted building were disregarded when the adverse effects of the proposed building were assessed the effects of the bulk would be minor.  This was because the proposed building’s divergence from the baseline along the northern boundary for the first 18m was minor.  The Committee noted that the site at 97 Filleul Street was not fully developed and the Committee noted while this had been the case for many years there was always the prospect of a larger building being established on the site.

8      The Committee accepted the urban design advice that had been provided by Mr Christos that the design and scale of the building was appropriate for the site.  It noted the applicants offer to provide texture on that part of the building facing the front Courtyard of the restaurant at Filleul Street.  It agreed that this was appropriate as it would assist with integrating the new building.  It also considered that a painted surface would not be adequate.  The additional design element could be achieved by a condition of consent.   

Verandah

9      The Committee considered the effects of a verandah not being installed on the building.  The Committee noted during the site visit that there were no verandahs on the east side of Filleul Street between Hanover and London Street.  It determined the most relevant expert evidence on the verandah was provided by the Council’s Urban Designer Peter Christos.  He did not consider the absence of the verandah to be a significant adverse effect.  The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr Christos and it noted that the absence of the verandah did not appear to be a primary concern of the submitters who presented at the hearing.

Earthworks

10    Earthworks and site stability were a particular concern of submitters.  The Committee noted that the earthworks proposed were not significant in volume but the works were complicated by the presence of existing retaining walls on the northern boundary of the site.  The largest breach of the earthworks rules would result from a proposed 3.7m cut on the northern boundary adjoining the Filleul Street frontage.

11    The Committee noted that the legal submissions from Len Andersen argue that there was insufficient information to assess the effects of the earthworks.  The Committee had considered the information provided.  The Committee was satisfied with the level of information provided by the applicant and with the responses by Mr Steve Macknight to questions on stability, feasibility and available engineering options.  It noted that basement retaining walls would be part of the engineer’s design for the building foundations and that design details and engineering plans were often finalised at the building consent stage.  It also noted the letter from Mr Robinson tabled in the evidence of Mr Salis did not suggest the works could not be undertaken in a safe manner but it identified were as of possible risk.  In this case the works would be designed and supervised by a professional engineer.  The Committee considered that there had been sufficient information provided by the applicant to allow an adequate assessment of the implications of the work and to satisfy the Committee that the adverse effects can be adequately managed through detailed design and suspension by an engineer.  The Committee considered that appropriate engineering supervision during the construction process could be secured though the consent conditions. 

12    The concerns raised by Len Andersen about the Council delegating decision making to the Resource Consents Manager in recommended Condition 2 were noted.  The Committee have decided that rather than plans being submitted to the Resource Consent Manager for approval a report would be required on proposed methods to manage site stability during the construction phase and the report would be subject to a professional peer review.  The report and the peer review were to be provided to the Council before any works on the site commerce and were also to be made available to the owners and occupiers of adjoining sites.  The Committee considered that this would ensure the stability of adjoining sites would be given due consideration during the construction phase.  In this case, the Committee was satisfied that the conditions imposed to manage the potential effects of earthworks were adequate and appropriate.  

13    The Committee noted that the submitters (Mr Robinson & Mr Salis) were joint owners of the existing retaining walls on the northern boundary of the site and their evidence indicates that they were not prepared to allow the walls to be altered even if consent was granted.  The Committee noted that the retaining walls were not directly aligned with the surveyed boundary and significant parts of the wall appear to be on the applicant’s property.  On that basis the blocking positon of the submitters in relation to a replacement wall appeared to the Committee to be unreasonable.  If appropriate precautions were in place a well-designed and appropriately engineered replacement wall on the boundary would appear to be of benefit to all parties.

14    The Committee had retained the condition requiring liability insurance which was appropriate for a project of this scale but it did not consider a bond was also required to deal with potential property damage.  

15    The Committee observed that construction activity would from time to time occur in urban centres as building were replaced, renewed or strengthened.  Although the effects of construction noise cannot be internalised, the effects were temporary and can be limited.  It acknowledged the submissions from Lincoln Darling, Ken O’Connell and Rod McLeod regarding the significant construction phase effects experienced by neighbours during the development of 93 Filleul Street.  The Committee also accepted the difficulty of accessing the site from the rear and it noted the behaviour of contractors could impact on the use of the lower car parking area.  The applicant had promoted the use of a construction management plan to deal with the construction phase effects which the Committee supports.  The plan appeared to cover all the relevant construction phase effects issues identified during the hearing.

Loss of Light

16    Mr Salis and Mr Robertson as the joint building owners of Vero house and the occupiers of highly regarded specialist dental consulting rooms in Vero House made strong submissions on the likely effects on their professional practices.  It was noted that Mr Salis in particular would be affected by the loss of natural light given the specialist colour matching work he undertakes.  The Committee acknowledged there would be an impact as the proposed building would be in close proximity to existing windows but as it had accepted that the application of the baseline was appropriate these effects would be similar to those that could occur with a permitted development.  In terms of mitigation the Committee accepts that painting of the building to reflect light would only be of limited benefit but it still considered it appropriate for this to be undertaken.  It had added a condition to ensure that this occurs.

Noise

17    The Committee noted the noise limit within the zone is L10 60DBA during the day and at night.  This was a much higher limit that a residential zone and this should mean that compliance issues for heating and ventilation equipment installed on the roof of the building do not occur.  The Committee considered that the effects could be managed by conditions of consent.

18    The Committee also noted that acoustic insulation would be required for the apartments to prevent reverse sensitivity issues arising.  It considered noise issues could be effectively managed by standard consent conditions and the conditions would ensure compliance with relevant standards.

Positive Effects

19    The Committee agreed that positive effects would accrue from the proposed development beyond the initial investment and construction activity.  The people living in the apartments would support business activity and vitality in the city centre.  The building would provide an edge to the street that was not a feature of the existing site and enhance amenity values of the street.

Conclusion

20    The Committee accepted the evidence of Mr Sycamore and Mr Bryce that if the baseline was applied the overall effects of the proposed activity would be minor.  The Committee considered the proposal passes the effect limb on the 104D gateway test and therefore the Committee could consider granting consent to the proposed development.

1                                Objectives and Polices

21    The Committee accepted the evidence from Mr Sycamore and Mr Bryce that only limited weighting should be applied to the proposed 2nd generation plan objectives and policies given that the provisions were subject to challenge and submissions were yet to be heard. 

22    Mr Sycamore determined that an overall assessment of the objectives and policies indicated that the proposal was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans.  Mr Bryce for the applicant agreed that in broad terms the proposal was consistent with the central policy outcomes of both District Plans.  Conrad Anderson argued that the absence of pedestrian shelter in the form of a verandah meant that in his view the development proposal was contrary to Policy 9.3.3 which sought to enhance amenity values in the Central Activity zone and therefore the proposal should be assessed as being contrary to the operative District Plan. 

23    The Committee noted that amenity values were defined broadly in the plan as follows:  

Amenity Values - Means those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes.

 

Amenity

24    Despite this, the assessment of objectives and policies by Conrad Anderson appeared to the Committee to be very narrow and selective.  Mr Anderson only focused on one objective and one policy in his evidence.  In the assessment of Policy 9.3.3 he extracted the element of shelter and formed a view that that the proposal was contrary to the policy based on the absence of shelter in the form of a verandah.  The Committee observed that the policy identifies a range of matters as well as shelter as contributing to amenity values and Mr Anderson was questioned about these.  His answers to the questions suggested he might not have adequately considered the breadth of matters contributing to amenity values.

25    The Committee accepted that verandahs were identified in the operative plan as important and that the failure to provide a verandah results in a non-complying activity status.  However, the evidence from the urban designer was that a verandah at the location would have limited benefit as there were no other verandahs on neighbouring buildings and as it was not a major pedestrian route.  The Committee agreed with this assessment.  The Committee noted that the urban designer would likely hold a different view if a new building was located in a key pedestrian area and was necessary to ensure a continuous area of verandah cover. 

26    The Committee preferred the assessments by Mr Bryce and Mr Sycamore by some margin.  They were significantly more comprehensive.  The Committee did not agree the proposal is contrary to Policy 9.3.3 or any other objective or policy in the proposed and operative plans.  It agreed that overall the proposal was consistent with objectives and policies of both plans.  Despite the absence of a verandah the Committee considered that that proposal would enhance street amenity values at 97 Filleul Street.  The site currently had open parking areas and it was set well back from the front of the site.  The proposed development would provide a defined street edge, locate car parking in the basement and improve safety by providing for passive surveillance of the street. 

Other Matters

27    In terms of precedent Mr Sycamore identifies that in his opinion the proposal would not create an undesirable precedent for future applications in the Central Activity zone.  The Committee agreed with this positon.  The use of the building for residential activity was permitted and the non-compliance with the operative District Plan relates to permitted activity conditions.  Approval was unlikely to set an undesirable precedent that would impact on consistent administration of the District Plan.

28    The legal submission from Len Andersen argues that the proposal should properly been seen as an application for Commercial Residential Activity.  The Committee did not agree that this was the case.  The Committee was satisfied that the consent as applied was for residential activity and the decision would be issued on that basis.  If Commercial Residential activity was to be undertaken in some of the apartments another resource consent would be required.  In the case of 93 Filleul Street it noted that a resource consent was issued to provide for commercial residential use on the site (LUC-2014-227).  Car parking for this use was addressed through lease car parks and secured under the consent approval.

Determination

29    The Committee considered that the proposal should be granted subject to conditions.

30    The Committee accepted that the baseline should be applied and on that basis the effects of an 11m high building can be discounted when considering the effects of the proposal.  Although the environmental change for the owners and occupiers of adjoining sites would be marked the Committee considered that the adverse effects beyond the baseline were minor.  Similar effects would be experienced by the properties adjoining the site from a complying building.

31    The Committee considered that although the proposal was non-complying due to the absence of a verandah that the effects of the verandah at the location were minor.

32    The proposal was consistent with the objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans.  The Committee had concluded that the operative plan must be given more weight.

33    The Committee considered that the granting of consent would be consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

34    The Committee had made changes to the consent conditions recommended by Mr Sycamore and the applicant to ensure that the construction phase issues associated with the development at 93 Filleul Street were suitably managed.  The Committee had required that a peer reviewed geotechnical report be provided.  The report required a best practice works specification be identified and implemented to address concerns about site stability during the construction phase.  The Committee considered that would ensure adequate investigation and management of site stability concerns and it would minimise the risk of any stability issues emerging.  The requirement for construction insurance was not opposed by the applicants and this was retained as a condition.  A $10,000,000 bond promoted by Len Andersen in his legal submissions was not considered necessary.

 

The meeting ended at 3.07 pm

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………

C H A I R P E R S O N

 

   


Council

1 August 2016

 

 

Hearings Committee - 6 April 2016

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

Confirms the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 6 April 2016 as a correct record (29 Queen Street).

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

A

Minutes of Hearings Committee held on 6 April 2016

79

 

 



 

Hearings Committee

MINUTES

 

Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 06 April 2016, commencing at 9.00 am

 

PRESENT

 

Chairperson

Cr Andrew Noone

 

 

Cr Lee Vandervis

Commissioner Colin Weatherall

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Amy Young (Processing Officer).

 

Governance Support Officer      Wendy Collard

 

 

 

PART A:

 

1      RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-548, 29 QUEEN STREET, DUNEDIN

 

The Committee considered an application for the establishment of a three storey building with associated earthworks at 29 Queen Street, Dunedin.  The committee was required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

The applicant was represented by:

 

·           Bridget Irving (Solicitor)

·           Campbell Hodgson (Solicitor)

·           Neville Butcher (Director of Eagle Corp Ltd)

·           Sandra Butcher (Director of Eagle Corp Ltd)

·           Derek McLachlan (Solicitor)

·           Nathan Harris (Planning Student)

 

There were no submitters present at the hearing.

 

Procedural Issues

 

There were no procedural matters raised.

 

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

 

The Planning Officer (Amy Young) spoke to a summary of her report and provided overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received. 

 

Mrs Young commented that the proposal for the establishment of a three storey building with associated earthworks at 29 Queen Street, Dunedin and the proposed building was to be used for visitor accommodation and be known as the Bluestone Villa.  She advised that it was to be a separate activity owned and operated by the owners of the Hotel Bluestone on George located at 571 George Street.  The main pedestrian and only vehicle access would be off Queen Street; however there would also be internal pedestrian access from the adjacent site at 571 George Street. 

 

Mrs Young advised that the proposed building would be located 5m back from the front boundary to allow for two on-site car parks off Queen Street with a small fenced garden area located in the south western corner.  The building would be approximately 6m above the footpath level at the Queen Street frontage and the maximum height of the building would be approximately 9.7m above existing ground level. 

 

Mrs Young commented that the proposed building would accommodate four bedrooms in total two on level 1 and two on level 3.  Each bedroom would have a separate en-suite bathroom and small sitting area and outdoor deck.  Mrs Young advised that a communal kitchen, dining area, living area and laundry would be accommodated on level 2 and a communal laundry on level 1. New external stair access would be provided from the ground level of level 1 to connect the subject site with 571 George Street. 

 

Mrs Young advised that the site was previously occupied by a split level villa which had been demolished and the site was now vacant with large exposed terraces.  The removal of the building had resulted in exposing facades and lower foundation walls of the neighbouring buildings.  She commented that the previous building on the site had been utilised for student accommodation and that the applicants purchased the property in order to gain control over the effects of the neighbouring site on their existing residence and hotel business.  The building was established around 1880 and an archaeological authority was obtained by the applicant prior to demolition. 

 

Mrs Young confirmed that the site was zoned Residential 3 in the Operative District plan and Inner City Residential in the Proposed District Plan.  She advised that Commercial Residential activity in the location was a non-complying activity and was also proposed as non-complying in the proposed plan.  Although at the time there were no relevant operative rules in the proposed plan.  Mrs Young commented that the objectives and policies of the proposed plan and operative plan had been taken into account.

 

When considering the permitted baseline Mrs Young commented that she believed that the design and appearance of the proposed building, and associated retaining and decking structures would not have an adverse effect on the adjoining owner above what can reasonably be expected to be developed as of right.  After giving consideration to the likely effects of the proposal, she considered the effects of the proposal could be appropriately mitigated by conditions of consent so as to be no more than minor.

 

Mrs Young considered the proposal to be consistent with the Operative Plans relevant Objectives and Policies of the Operative Plan and the Proposed Plan.  Mrs Young recommended that the Committee grant the application subject to conditions outlined in her report which are predominantly associated with the proposed earthworks.

 

The Senior Planner/Committee Advisor (John Sule) responded to questions on the timeframes for existing use rights which related to the removal of the villa and the construction of a new dwelling.  Mr Sule advised that existing use rights might be able to be considered and this might be possible if the proposal was treated as an application to the Council to increase the typical 12 month period to 24 months.  He advised that the Committee could seek legal advice on this aspect and he noted that the applicant’s legal team might be able to assist.

 

In response to questions regarding the stability of the site, Mrs Young referred to the advice that had been sought from Council’s Consultant Engineer, Lee Paterson specifically and commented that Mr Paterson had met with the applicant on site and discussed mitigation measures that would need to be put in place regardless of the consent.  Mrs Young noted that Mr Paterson emphasised that the stability of the slope and was the owners responsibility and that they were responsible for the site stability for the duration of the project to ensure that any works carried out on the site did not undermine buildings or foundations or exacerbate any land instability on neighbouring properties.

 

The Applicant’s Presentation

 

Campbell Hodgson (Legal Counsel for Eagle Corp Limited) tabled and spoke to his legal submissions on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Hodgson outlined the 104D gateway test and commented that overall, any adverse effects created by the proposal could be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated through conditions of consent or could be disregarded due to the permitted baseline.  He concluded that the application passed through the effects limb of the s 104D gateway.

 

Mr Hodgson advised that he agreed with the Council Planner's assessment of relevant objectives and he considered that those polices should be accepted.  These objectives and policies focused on:

 

a)     The adverse effects activities might have on amenity values in the residential area.

b)     Protecting the housing resource adjacent to campus; and

c)     Providing for commercial residential activities.

 

Mr Hodgson commented that he believed that the proposed development would ensure that the amenity of the area would be enhanced.  He advised that it would result in the development of a currently vacant site with a new building that would be consistent with the community’s expectations of a development in a residential zone.

 

In regards to the permitted baseline, Mr Hodgson advised that he agreed with the Council’s Planners assessment of the permitted baseline, and also suggested that the permitted baseline should be extended to cover the definition of residential activity which permits a homestay activity of up to 5 guests.  Mr Hodgson stated that a certain degree of commercial residential activity had been identified as being acceptable within the zone.  Mr Hodgson noted that should the applicants have decided to construct the same building for residential activity they would only require land use consent for breaches of performance standards.  It was against that potential that Mr Hodgson wished the application to be assessed.

 

Mr Hodgson commented that the height breaches associated with the proposed building were assessed as having effects that were no more than minor.  The residential appearance of the proposed building was seen to mitigate any adverse effects on amenity.  The hours of operation for the Bluestone Villa would be similar to the hours of activity in a residential zone.  He considered that this would mitigate the adverse non-visual amenity effects on the surrounding environment. 

 

Mr Hodgson noted that the proposal provided one car park less than was required for Commercial Residential Activity and that two car parks were required for guests and one for staff.  The shortfall of the car parking requirement could be accommodated on the adjacent site which contained the Bluestone on George Hotel which was also owned and operated by the applicants.  Mr Hodgson commented that his assessment of the effects of the proposal was the at any adverse effects could be avoided, remedied or mitigated though conditions of consent or could be disregarded due to the permitted baseline.

 

Mr Hodgson commented that he agreed with the Planner's assessment and weighting given to the Proposed District Plan “2GP”. 


 

Mr Hodgson advised that he had concerns regarding the Planner's proposed conditions 11 through to 15 as they appeared to be building consent matters.  The conditions reflected engineering requirements which would be more appropriately dealt with through the building consent process.  He submitted that these conditions should be removed and dealt with during the building consent process or alternatively, should form advice notes rather than conditions. 

 

In conclusion of his evidence Mr Hodgson submitted that the application allowed the applicants to provide for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing while avoiding, remedying and mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

 

Neville Butcher (Director of Eagle Corp Limited) tabled and outlined his existing operations on the adjacent site at 571 George Street.  Mr Butcher commented that the main reason for purchasing the neighbouring site was to have control over the tenants and the effects that they had on their hotel business.  He advised that a building report was undertaken on the villa that previously occupied the site which was in a state of disrepair and demolished in April 2015.  An archaeological authority was obtained as the building was constructed in the 1880s.

 

Mr Butcher advised that he wanted to establish a commercial style bed and breakfast in the new building to be called Bluestone Villa which would be run in conjunction with the existing hotel Bluestone on George next door.  Staff and on-site management at Bluestone on George would also service the Bluestone Villa.

 

Mr Butcher advised that Architect Philip Gilchrist had been appointed to design a building of high quality that fitted within the existing streetscape.  Mr Butcher advised that he had directed Mr Gilchrist to design a building within the parameters of the District Plan framework if possible.  The building proposed was to be constructed to have a long life and in the future if it was not run as a commercial bed and breakfast Mr Butcher (or any future owner) could easily convert it to a residential property for a family home or student accommodation.

 

Mr Butcher confirmed that the building would be of typical residential design and would have no trouble being converted into a single residential dwelling.  In response to questions regarding transport modes to the site and car parking, Mr Butcher advised that there would be sufficient overflow parking provided on the adjacent site should the need arose.  He commented that the majority of his guests arrived by taxi or shuttle direct from the airport and that he would not be operating a courtesy vehicle due to restrictive nature of the approvals required to do so.  Mr Butcher advised that Bluestone on George hotel currently provided 15 rooms and 16 car parks and that Mrs Young had assessed that the effects of car parking on the subject site as a standalone activity and the shortfall in car parking was considered acceptable by the Transportation Planner/Engineer.  He commented that any overflow car parking provided by the applicant on the adjacent site should be seen as bonus and he agreed with Mrs Young’s opinion that did not need to be conditioned or tied to the consent in any way. 

 

Mr Butcher advised that one small sign with the name Bluestone Villa would be erected to direct visitors to the site.  The main reception area would be on the adjoining site which has more prominent signage which was typically associated with visitor accommodation.

 

The Planner’s Review of her Recommendation

 

Mrs Young reviewed her recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining her recommendation to grant consent.  She acknowledged Mr Hodgson’s request to for the removal of conditions 11-15 and treat them as advice notes; however emphasised that the building consent process did not cover all effects in relation to earthworks.  Mrs Young commented that she considered that the proposal required an earthworks consent under the operative District Plan and conditions should be set as requested by Council’s Consultant Engineer to mitigate potential adverse effects of the earthworks.  She maintained her recommendation to the Committee to grant the consent subject to proposed conditions.

 

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

 

"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.15 am."

 

Motion carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.00 am and reconvened 10.13 am.

 

The Applicant’s Response

 

Mr Hodgson reiterated the positive aspects of the application and asked for consent to be granted.  He commented on existing use rights, permitted baseline and car parking effects.  Mr Hodgson confirmed that existing use rights for the site in relation to the recently demolished villa had nearly lapsed and he did not consider Mr Sule’s position to be correct.  He advised that the applicants could have applied for a building consent in order to maintain the existing use rights but they hadn't because of the requirement for resource consent.  Mr Hodgson suggested that they should put existing use rights to one side when making their assessment.  He commented that the relevant baseline was the development of a dwelling that complied with the District Plan and he noted the design of the house largely comes within the permitted baseline and would look like a dwelling.  In relation to the permit