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 August 2016, commencing at 9.00am

PRESENT

Chairperson	Cr Andrew Noone
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Andrew Whiley
	Bill Feather (Mosgiel Taieri Community Board)

IN ATTENDANCE

Kirstyn Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Lianne Darby (Planner), Barry Knox (Senior Landscape Architect), Lee Paterson (Geotechnical Engineer, MWH) and Chelsea McGaw (Consents and Compliance Officer

Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard

1 Resource Consent Applications: 82 Riccarton Road East, Mosgiel

The Committee considered an application to undertake a subdivision sought to create three residential lots at 82 Riccarton Road East, Mosgiel.

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:

· Allan Cubitt (Planning Consultant)

· Chris Kelliher (Applicant)

· Mike Moore (Landscape Architect)

· Derek Railton (Engineer)

· Dr John Lindqvist (Geologist)

There were two submitters present at the hearing.

Margaret Scott

Warren Hanley (Otago Regional Council)

Dr Ben Mackey (Hazards Analyst, Otago Regional Council)

Procedural Issues

There were no procedure matters raised.

Late Submission

The Planner (Lianne Darby) advised that a late submission from D Mason which had been received on 26 July 2016.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

"That the Committee declines the late submission from D Mason under Section 37 of the Resource Management Act.”

Motion carried

Presentation of the Planner’s Report

The Planning Officer (Lianne Darby) 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 Darby advised that the zoning of the subject site was rural and the land was annotated as instability hazard on the Council’s hazard register. She commented that the status of application as a non-complying activity under the operative plan and that under the proposed District Plan, it was proposed that the zoning of the site be changed to Rural-Coastal and identified as a Hazard 2 – Land Instability. Mrs Darby advised that the minimum lot size rule for the Rural zones identified in the proposed District Plan had legal effect and a minimum lot size of 40.0ha for the Rural-Coastal zone had been set. The subdivision was also considered to be a non-complying activity under the Proposed Plan.

Mrs Darby acknowledged that the application had been amended since the release of her S42A report and that she had not reviewed her assessment in light of these changes. In making her assessment of the environmental effects of the proposal, she advised that she considered the nature of the application, the local environment, Council Officers’ comments, and the comments of submitters. Mrs Darby commented that it was her view that the proposed subdivision and residential development would have adverse effects on rural and landscape amenity which would be more than minor. She considered that the proposal was consistent with many of the objectives and policies of both Plans, but inconsistent with those regarding amenity, rural productive worth, landscape and subdivision of rural land. Importantly, Mrs Darby commented that she considered it contrary to those objectives and policies regarding amenity of the Rural zone. Furthermore, she believed that the granting of consent risked the setting of an undesirable precedent which could extend well beyond the boundaries of the subject site as there were comparable properties in the surrounding area and wider afield.

Mrs Darby submitted that she recommended that, subject to conditions, consent be declined. However, she advised that with the reduction from three lots to two lots, it was likely that the proposal could now pass the gateway tests set out in s104D of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) and that ultimately the Committee must form its own view on its own assessment of the proposal, and might decide that granting consent was a more appropriate decision.

The Applicant’s Presentation

Allan Cubitt (Consultant Planner) commented on the proposed changes to the subdivision which resulted in a reduction from three lots to two lots. Mr Cubitt advised that the changes were made in a direct response to Mrs Darby’s recommending report and the comments made by Council officers and the submitters. He noted that as the revised proposal was a reduction in the scale of the proposal and, with the surrender of the existing building platform along the ridgeline, it was anticipated that the effects would be reduced and there was no need to re-notify the application.

Chris Kelliher (Director of Mainland Property (2004) Limited) commented that it was a difficult site as it wasn’t really big enough to be a productive unit. He advised that he Mr Kelliher commented that he believed it would be inappropriate to finish steers or bobby calves on the site due to the close proximity of residential neighbours but did allow the grazing of sheep but this was more as grass and weed control than for any return. If consent was not granted, he would need to reconsider the potential of the site.

Derek Railton (Engineer) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and commented on the stormwater and wastewater management options for the site. Mr Railton commented that in to stormwater that there was a requirement that flows from the site were not increased or concentrated as a result of the development. He advised that this was achievable through rainwater collection from hard surfaces and a retention or detention system. Either system would be viable at the location but that the specific system design would need to be undertaken in conjunction with the house design. Mr Railton commented that he believed that it would be appropriate for a stormwater management plan to be required as a condition of consent. In response to questions he advised that he did not consider that it would be practical to reduce the amount of stormwater coming off the site given that it mainly comprised natural run-off but that water coming off the new dwelling could certainly be managed. He noted that stormwater from the structures on Lot 1 were discharging to the south so only the discharge from any structures on Lot 2 would be managed towards Main South Road.

Mr Railton advised that he also believed that there were two options for wastewater treatment and dispersal for Lot 2; a primary septic tank system to mounded beds or a secondary treatment system dispersed through pressure compensating drip lines. The cost for each system was about the same; however he considered the dripline system to be more versatile. Each system had a very low application rate and, in his opinion, would not affect land instability. Mr Railton advised that Lot 1 was already serviced by a drip line system and exhibited no effect on land instability.

Mr Railton responded to questions regarding the geology of the site and whether the schist underlying the site would impact on the system. He commented that while at least 150mm of topsoil was required he noted that in some cased he had supplement the topsoil cover over the dispersal field. In this instance, he did not think that this would be an issue as the area required for the dispersal field was small compared to the site area and he was certain that a suitable location could be identified. Mr Railton advised that in regards to planting, that grass over the dripline dispersal field was required but generally other planting was not required. In the case of primary treatment, he noted that the mounds could be planted out.

Dr John Lindqvist (Geological Consultant) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and detailed the geology of the site. Dr Lindqvist commented on the slump identified by the Otago Regional Council (ORC) in its submission and advised that it was his opinion that that this was a shallow element which would be unlikely to develop into a significant feature. He suggested that the area could be planted out which would contribute to the stability of the slump. Dr Lindqvist commented that the feature was contained entirely within proposed Lot 2 and, as such, this meant that management of the area was less complicated than if it straddled the boundary. While he had not observed any sign of failure associated with the slump area and did not consider that the feature was likely to fail, he considered that requiring any building platform to be set back from the slump feature would provide some peace of mind to the Committee should they be of a mind to grant consent. In response to a request from the Committee, he agreed to provide, in consultation with Mr Cubitt, a more detailed plan which showed the feature and set back proposed for the building platform on proposed Lot 2.

It was moved (Noone/Whiley):

That the meeting be adjourned until 10.40 am.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 10.25 am and reconvened at 10.40 am.

Mike Moore (Landscape Architect) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and noted the landscape values of the area. Mr Moore advised that the proposed positive effect of surrendering the existing building platform on the ridgeline in favour of the building platforms on proposed Lots 1 and 2. He commented that there were a number of conditions proposed which would help to alleviate the effects of the built form on the landscape, including the platform on proposed Lot 1 being cut into the hillside, requiring a colour palette for the structures, height restrictions and planting. Taking into consideration the proposed conditions of consent, Mr Moore advised that he was confident that the proposal would fit comfortably into the environment. He believed that the values of the Saddle Hill Landscape Conservation Area (SHLCA) could not be considered as the subject site sat well outside of the SHLCA and that there was no mandate to apply a buffer zone. Overall, he considered the landscape effects to be less than minor when considering what could be undertaken on the site as of right.

Mr Cubitt returned to his pre-circulated evidence and commented that the proposed district plan zoning of the area had been challenged but that this was not relevant to the application. He maintained his opinion that the area was one where the character was in transition from rural to rural residential. Mr Cubitt commented that he considered that the rural amenity that the District Plan sought to protect was already absent from the area, noting that the area was fragmented and enclosed by residential activity. He advised that he agreed with Mr Moore regarding the relevance of the SHLCA and cautioned that the area was not an outstanding natural landscape and, as such, section 6(b) of the Act was not applicable. Mr Cubitt advised that the land instability could be adequately addressed through conditions of consent and that stormwater and wastewater discharges could be managed. He referred to his written objectives and policy assessment and noted that he did not believe the proposal was contrary to these.

Mr Cubitt commented on precedence and advised that while he considered that there was enough to set the site apart from other similar sites which might also seek to be subdivided, he believed that even if a precedent was set, this was unlikely to be undesirable. He accepted the draft conditions put forward by Mrs Darby but suggested that conditions regarding the planting out of the areas of instability as proposed by Mr Moore and the planting out of the slump area also be included.

Council Officers' evidence

The Landscape Architect (Barry Knox) commented that the revised proposal was much improved from a landscape point of view. Mr Knox advised that he supported the surrender of the building platform along the ridgeline and believed that this reduced the adverse effects down to minor from moderate. He commented that his reference to the SHLCA predominantly related to the view shafts only but he accepted that this should be given little weight by the Committee. Overall, Mr Knox reviewed his position and believed that the effects on landscape, beyond that which could occur lawfully on the site, were minor.

The Consents and Compliance Officer (Chelsea McGaw) advised that with the removal of Lot 3 from the proposal, the suggestion to connect to the Council’s reticulated services was no longer a consideration and, as such, she had no additional comment to make regarding the proposal.

The Geotechnical Engineer, MWH (Lee Paterson) advised that he was satisfied with Dr Lindquist’s opinion that the slump feature would pose little risk to the building platform on proposed Lot 2 but he supported the inclusion of a setback. He commented that he also agreed with Dr Lindqvist that any risk to the proposed building platform on Lot 1 from the slump feature would be minor. In response to questions regarding the submission from the Fire Service which sought the burial of the firefighting water tanks, Mr Paterson commented that any disturbance of that extent would require engineering design but it was his experience that this was achievable.

Submitters

Margaret Scott spoke to her submission and acknowledged that the reduction in lot numbers from three to two was an improvement but she remained concerned regarding drainage from the site to her property. Ms Scott commented that she accepted that water drained downhill naturally; however sought reassurance that the proposal would not exacerbate the issue. She advised that she was also concerned that the disturbance required to develop the site might worsen the existing water and stability issues.

With respect to visual effects, Ms Scott commented that she considered that the existing barn was very obvious and she would prefer to see it painted a colour which was more sympathetic to the landscape. She advised that she sought to have all structures contained within identified building platforms and increased plantings. Ms Scott noted that planting was required under the previous consent but this had not been carried out as she imagined.

Dr Ben Mackey (Otago Regional Council) spoke to his pre-circulated evidence and commented that much of the earlier discussion had addressed many of his concerns. He reiterated that the proposed building platform for Lot 2 was the most stable location. Dr Mackey cautioned that earthworks and access track could exacerbate instability issues. He noted historic photographs show movement between the 1940’s and now considered that the site remained dynamic. Dr Mackey commented that all instability issues were contained within the subject site and risk management did not rely on external influences. He considered that there were options available to improve the stability of the site.

It was moved (Noone/Whiley)

That the meeting be adjourned until 12.20 pm.

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.14 pm and reconvened at 12.20 pm.

The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation

Mrs Darby reviewed her recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, and commented that overall, she was satisfied the reduction of the number of lots from three to two had reduced the adverse environmental effects such that the effects were no more than minor when compared with what could occur on the site as of right. She advised that the reduction of lot numbers also meant that the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan. It was her opinion after considering the revised proposal and evidence presented to the Committee, that the proposal now passed the gateway tests set out in s104D of the Act and the Committee could consider granting consent.

Mrs Darby advised that she remained concerned that the proposal would set an undesirable precedent and commented on several other sites which could argue for a similar outcome. In her opinion, the only thing that might set the site apart from others was that there would be a reduction in environmental effects when compared with what could occur on that site as of right. Furthermore, the granting of consent would allow stricter controls to be imposed on the site. Overall, Mrs Darby believed that if the proposal was carefully and tightly conditioned, she could support the granting of the application subject to the Committee being satisfied in relation to the precedent issue.

Applicant’s Right of Reply

Mr Cubitt reiterated the positive aspects of the application and commented that the water which drained on to Ms Scott’s property was natural drainage and while Mr Kelliher would investigate drainage options, he was unsure whether this could be addressed through the RMA process. He commented that building colours and building platforms had been offered as conditions; specifically noting that Mr Mackey considered the building platform for proposed Lot 2 was in the most stable location on the site Mr Cubitt reiterated his request that consent be granted.

It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):

That the meeting be adjourned

Motion carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.43 pm and reconvened on Monday 5 September 2016 at 10.00 am

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 – 82 Riccarton Road East, Mosgiel	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 10.05 am.

MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 5 SEPTEMBER 2016, COMMENCING AT 10.05 AM

PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley and Bill Feather (Mosgiel Taieri Community Board)

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

PART C:

1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC 2016-169 and SUB 2016-28,

82 RICCARTON ROAD EAST, MOSGIEL

The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant. A site visit was undertaken on 29 August 2016 was undertaken during the adjournment.

Decision

It was moved (Noone/Whiley):

SUB 2016-28 and LUC 016-169

"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 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 for a two-lot subdivision on the site at 82 Riccarton Road East, East Taieri legally described as Lot 28 Deposited Plan 341800 (Computer Freehold Register 171990), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:

Conditions

1 The proposal should be given effect to generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Craig Horne Registered Surveyor entitled, ‘Figure 7: Amended Subdivision Plan, 82 Riccarton Road, East Taieri’ submitted with further evidence received by Council on 9 August 2016, and the accompanying information submitted as part of SUB-2016-28 received by Council on 28 April 2016 (and revised on 11 May 2016 and 9 August 2016), except where modified by the following:

2. Prior to certification of the survey plan pursuant to section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant should ensure the following:

a) If a requirement for any easements for services was incurred during the survey then those easements should be granted or reserved and included in a Memorandum of Easements on the survey plan.

b) The internal boundary between new Lot 1 and 2 should be configured such that the scarp/slump feature shown on ‘Proposed Subdivision of Lot 28 DP 341800’, by Craig Horne dated 29 August 2016 and attached as Appendix 1 to the certificate, was contained entirely within new Lot 2.

3. Prior to certification pursuant to section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the applicant should complete the following:

a) That the landscape feature within the subject site should be closely planted in accordance with the land management plan prepared by Geolink Land Investigations (undated), previously attached to Consent Notice 6451339.15 on CFR 171990.

b) The Geolink Land Investigations report of condition 3(a) above should be attached to the consent notices of conditions 3(d) and 3(f) below.

c) That a plan for new Lot 1 should be prepared showing the building platform for the lot in accordance with the revised application plan received at Council on 9 August 2016, and the geotechnical reports submitted with this and previous subdivision and development applications for the land. The plan should show:

(i) The platform dimensions;

(ii) Distances to boundaries;

(iii) The areas of known land instability as depicted on the revised plan (received at Council on 20 May 2016) prepared by Dr Jon K Lindqvist as Figure 1 of the geotechnical report: Geotechnical Assessment of Lot 3, part 82 Riccarton Road East, Dunedin, dated 18 May 2016;

(iv) The features of the plan should be clearly labelled.

The plan should not show the previously identified building platform of Consent Notice 6451339.15 as the platform was to be surrendered as part of the subdivision proposal. The plan should be attached to the consent notice of condition 3(d) below.

d) That a consent notice should be prepared for registration on the title of new Lot 1 for the following on-going conditions:

‘There should be only one residential unit constructed on the site in order to maintain the density of development in accordance with the resource consent decision of LUC-2016-169.’

‘The dwelling for the site should be fully confined to the building platform as shown on the attached plan to manage adverse visual and natural hazard effects. The siting, design, colours and landscaping of any dwelling should be undertaken in accordance with the conditions of resource consent LUC-2016-169 – Stage 1.’

‘The portion of the landscape feature situated within the site should be maintained in vegetation as specified by the attached Geolink Land Investigations report for on-going land stability reasons. It was the landowner’s responsibility to ensure that the planting was maintained in perpetuity, and to replant within a 12 month period if the slope is cleared.’

‘Adequate drainage systems should be installed and maintained to intersect surface water or spring water flows away from buildings.’

e) That a plan for new Lot 2 should be prepared showing the building platform for the lot in accordance with the revised application plan received at Council on 9 August 2016 and the geotechnical reports submitted with this and previous subdivision and development applications for the land. The plan should show:

(i) The platform dimensions;

(ii) Distances to boundaries;

(iv) The features of the plan should be clearly labelled.

(v) A minimum 10m set back line in relation to any existing scarps or depressions.

The plan should be attached to the consent notice of condition 3(f) below.

f) That a consent notice should be prepared for registration on the title of new Lot 2 for the following on-going conditions:

‘There should be only one residential unit constructed on the site in order to maintain the density of development in accordance with the resource consent decision of LUC-2016-169.’

‘All buildings should maintain a minimum setback distance of 10.0m from any existing scarps or depressions on the slopes of the lot, as shown on the attached plan.’

‘Any existing scarps or depressions on the slopes of the lot should be densely planted to ensure stability of the site. It was the landowner’s responsibility to ensure that the planting was maintained in perpetuity’

‘Adequate drainage systems should be installed and maintained to intersect surface water or spring water flows away from buildings’

g) That the consent notice 6451339.15 should be cancelled from the title of the subject site.

LUC 2016-169 – Stage 1 and 2

"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 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 for one residential unit on each of new Lots 1 and 2 of SUB-2016-28 at 82 Riccarton Road East, East Taieri legally described as Lot 28 Deposited Plan 341800 (Computer Freehold Register 171990), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:

Stage 1 – new Lot 1 of SUB-2016-28

1 The proposal should be given effect to generally in accordance with the revised plan prepared by Craig Horne Registered Surveyor entitled, ‘Figure 7: Amended Subdivision Plan, 82 Riccarton Road, East Taieri, submitted with further evidence received by Council on 9 August 2016, and the accompanying information submitted as part of LUC-2016-169 received by Council on 28 April 2016 (and revised on 11 May 2016 and 9 August 2016), except where modified by the following:

2 That only one residential unit should be established on new Lot 1 of SUB-2016-28. The dwelling should be fully contained within the approved building platform as shown on the consent notice plan attached to the Computer Freehold Register. The dwelling and any accessory buildings could be built within yard spaces where these are situated within the approved building platform. For clarity, farm accessory buildings might be established anywhere on the site except for the highly visible ridgeline providing they complied with the yard setbacks set out in the Operative District Plan for rural zones.

3 The existing workshop/barn building on-site (currently used as a dwelling) and any existing or future buildings, should be clad and/or painted in a uniform non-reflective recessive colour being a muted tone of green, grey, brown, tussock or similar subdued colour, to blend in with the colours of the surrounding landscape. The consent holder should submit details of the permanent colour and cladding of the existing building to Council for approval within three months of the deposit of the survey plan. Any changes to the colour and/or cladding work of the existing building on-site should be undertaken within 12 months of the deposit of the survey plan in accordance with the approved details.

4 The consent holder should submit a landscape development plan for the curtilage of the existing building or future permanent dwelling to the Resource Consents Manager for approval within three months of the deposit of the survey plan. The planting should be undertaken in accordance with the approved landscape development plan within 12 months of the date of deposit of the survey plan for SUB-2016-28. At a minimum the landscape plan should include:

a) The location of the planting on-site in relation to the residential dwelling;

b) The density of planting and the species to be used, the number of each species to be planted, and the age/grade/height of the plants at the time of planting.

c) The measures that would be utilised to ensure the successful long-term establishment of the plantings.

5 Should the existing barn/dwelling be replaced by a new dwelling, plans and elevations of the house and any residential accessory buildings should be submitted to the Resource Consents Manager for approval, prior to lodging an application for building consent for the replacement dwelling. The plans should detail:

a) The location of the proposed dwelling in relation to the boundaries and the approved building platform;

b) The dimensions of the proposed dwelling;

c) The nature and colour of the materials being used to clad and roof the dwelling;

d) The location and extent of any earthworks to be carried out;

e) A landscape development plan that would be implemented to mitigate the effects of the dwelling on the surrounding landscape.

6 The landscape development plan of condition 5(e) above should show, as a minimum:

a) The location of the planting on-site in relation to the proposed dwelling;

b) The density of planting and the species to be used, the number of each species to be planted, and the age/grade/height of the plants at the time of planting.

c) The measures that would be utilised to ensure the successful long-term establishment of the plantings.

7 The planting identified in the landscape development plan of condition 6 above should be completed within 12 months of the date of occupation of the new dwelling.

8 Should the existing workshop/barn building on-site (currently used as a dwelling) be replaced by a new dwelling, then a Stormwater Management Plan for the development of the lot should be provided to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit for approval. The Stormwater Management Plan should outline how stormwater from the new dwelling, any accessory buildings, and hard stand areas on-site would be managed to ensure post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows, and to identify and address any downstream effects of the stormwater generated by the development. The stormwater management plan should ensure that adequate drainage systems should be installed and maintained to intersect surface water or spring water flows away from buildings. Once approved the stormwater management plan should be implemented on the site.

9 Should the existing workshop/barn building on-site (currently used as a dwelling) be replaced by a new dwelling, then a suitable effluent disposal system to service the residential dwelling should be specifically designed and installed by a suitably qualified person in order to minimise the risk of de-stabilising the land or adversely affecting neighbouring properties in any way.

10 Access to the new lot should have a minimum width of 4.0m and a vertical clearance of not less than 4.0m high to ensure that the New Zealand Fire Service appliances have sufficient vehicular access to the property.

11 The dwelling should have an adequate firefighting water supply available at all times in accordance with SNZ PAS 4509:2008 in order to reduce the fire risk to the property. This could be stored in underground tanks or tanks that are partially buried (provided the top of the tank was no more than 1.0m above ground level) which could be accessed by an opening in the top of the tank so that couplings are not required.

12 A hardstand area should be formed beside the tanks of condition 11 above so that a fire service appliance could park on it, if so required.

Stage 2 – new Lot 2 of SUB-2016-28

Lapse Date - Stage 2 of LUC-2016-169 would lapse 5 years from the date that the s223 certificate for SUB-2016-28 was issued.

13 The proposal should be given effect to generally in accordance with the revised plan prepared by Craig Horne Registered Surveyor entitled, ‘Figure 7: Amended Subdivision Plan, 82 Riccarton Road, East Taieri, submitted with further evidence received by Council on 9 August 2016, and the accompanying information submitted as part of LUC-2016-169 received by Council on 28 April 2016 (and revised on 11 May 2016 and 9 August 2016), except where modified by the following:

14 That only one residential unit should be established on new Lot 2 of SUB-2016-28. The dwelling should be fully contained within the approved building platform as shown on the consent notice plan attached to the Computer Freehold Register. The dwelling and any accessory buildings could be built within yard spaces where these are situated within the approved building platform. For clarity farm accessory buildings might be established anywhere on the site providing they complied with the yard setbacks set out in the Operative District Plan for rural zones.

15 Prior to lodging an application for building consent for the dwelling, plans and elevations of the house and any residential accessory buildings, should be submitted to the Resource Consents Manager for approval. The plans should detail:

a) The location of the proposed dwelling in relation to the boundaries and the approved building platform;

b) The dimensions of the proposed dwelling;

c) The nature and colour of the materials being used to clad and roof the dwelling;

d) The location and extent of any earthworks to be carried out;

e) A landscape development plan that would be implemented to mitigate the effects of the dwelling on the surrounding landscape.

16 The landscape development plan of condition 13(e) above should show, as a minimum:

a) The location of the planting on-site in relation to the proposed dwelling;

b) The density of planting and the species to be used, the number of each species to be planted, and the age/grade/height of the plants at the time of planting.

c) The measures that would be utilised to ensure the successful long-term establishment of the plantings.

17 The planting identified in the landscape development plan of condition 14 above should be completed within 12 months of the date of occupation of the dwelling.

18 A Stormwater Management Plan for the development of the lot should be provided to the Water and Waste Services Business Unit for approval. The Stormwater Management Plan should outline how stormwater from the new dwelling, any accessory buildings, and hard stand areas on-site would be managed to ensure post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows, and to identify and address any downstream effects of the stormwater generated by the development. The stormwater management plan should ensure that adequate drainage systems should be installed and maintained to intersect surface water or spring water flows away from buildings. Once approved the stormwater management plan should be implemented on the site.

19 A suitable effluent disposal system to service the residential dwelling should be specifically designed and installed by a suitably qualified person in order to minimise the risk of de-stabilising the land or adversely affecting neighbouring properties in any way.

20 Access to the new lot should have a minimum width of 4.0m and a vertical clearance of not less than 4.0m high to ensure that the New Zealand Fire Service appliances have sufficient vehicular access to the property.

21 The new dwelling should have an adequate firefighting water supply available at all times in accordance with SNZ PAS 4509:2008 in order to reduce the fire risk to the property. This could be stored in underground tanks or tanks that are partially buried (provided the top of the tank is no more than 1.0m above ground level) which could be accessed by an opening in the top of the tank so that couplings are not required.

22 A hardstand area should be formed beside the tanks of condition 21 above so that a fire service appliance could park on it, if so required."

Motion carried

Reasons for the Decision

Existing Environment

1 The subject site was legally described as Lot 28 Deposited Plan 341800, held in Computer Freehold Register 171990, and had an area of 6.6862ha. The Committee noted that it was a generally rectangular shape, and was situated on the lower slopes of Saddle Hill immediately behind a line of residential properties fronting Main South Road. The predominant use of the site was residential with limited grazing. The areas to the north and east of the site were also predominantly residential in nature. The Committee accepted that the proximity of the site to neighbouring residential properties limits the available farming uses.

2 The Committee accepted that the existing site was already less than the 15ha minimum required by the Operative District Plan and presented a significant short fall should the minimum lot size promoted by the proposed District Plan be adopted. It considered that small rural blocks were unlikely to ever be independent and economically-viable properties. The land of the subject site was also sloping and not prime pastoral country, further reducing its productive worth. However, the Committee noted that some form of horticulture could be a viable use for this property.

3 The Committee acknowledged the changes to the application offered by applicant to reduce the number of proposed lots for the subdivision from three to two and accepts this amendment to the application. It considered that the proposed changes would result in a reduction of adverse effects from what was originally proposed and there was no need to re-notify the application.

Permitted Baseline

4 The Committee considered whether to apply the permitted baseline assessment to this application. While the Committee accepted that neither the District Plan nor the Proposed Plan allowed any subdivision to occur as of right and no residential activity on the proposed lots was permitted, it recognised that one house could be established on the subject site courtesy of resource consent RMA-2005-369384. A building platform established by the resource consent had been approved for the subject site on new Lot 1.

5 The Committee noted that RMA-2005-369384 was varied by LUC-2005-369384/A to allow for the use of a temporary house outside of the building platform. The built form of the barn/temporary dwelling was established and there was no mechanism to require the removal of the structure albeit that the kitchen was required to be decommissioned should the dwelling approved by RMA-2005-369384 be constructed.

6 As such, the Committee considered that one residential unit and the built form of the barn were the current lawful development potential of the site. It believed that this was the appropriate baseline against which the activity should be considered, and against which the proposal had been assessed. As a result, it was the effects arising from the proposal, beyond the permitted baseline, that were the crucial elements and these were considered further below.

Hazards

7 The Committee acknowledged that the slopes of Saddle Hill were recognised by the Council’s Hazards Register as being subject to 10116 – Land Stability (land movement) and 11589 – Land Stability (land movement). The north facing slopes had been mapped on the McKellar geological map as being subject to slips. Land Stability was addressed by an existing consent notice on the title of the subject site which sought to maintain the stability of the slopes through controls on planting and the positions of building sites. The ORC had submitted in opposition to the proposal, partly because of risk from natural hazards. The ORC had also identified the land instability issues with this land, and considered the original geotechnical report was deficient.

8 The Committee took comfort in the amended geotechnical report prepared by Dr Jon K Lindqvist dated 18 May 2016 (submitted post-ORC submission) and its review by Council’s consultant engineer, Mr Lee Paterson. Dr Lindqvist’s report described the geology of the landform of the subject site, and noted that the selection of suitable building areas was complicated by a broad area of shallow slides. Dr Mackey, in his evidence tabled at the hearing, accepted that the proposed building platform on new Lot 2 was one of the more stable areas on the site. However, Dr Mackey noted that there was evidence of disturbed terrain upslope of the proposed building platform and the building platform should be positioned sufficiently distant from this feature. He also considered that the instability hazard present by the slump feature would be improved by planting.

9 The Committee accepted Dr Mackey’s recommendations and consent notices would be required to ensure the risk to the building platform on new Lot 2 posed by the slump feature would be mitigated. Furthermore, the Committee did not wish to see the management of this slump feature split between new lots 1 and 2 and considered that the boundary should be realigned (if required) to ensure the feature was contained entirely within new Lot 2.

10 The Committee acknowledged the Council’s consultant engineers reservations regarding development within the site on steep slopes, particularly where there were previously mapped signs of instability. The Committee noted that further planting was proposed to mitigate an additional landslide stability risk as shown in green in Figure 7: Amended Subdivision Plan, 82 Riccarton Road, East Taieri submitted with further evidence received by Council on 9 August 2106. Where landslide features were contained within multiple properties, practical and co-ordinated management of the land becomes difficult. The Committee considered it was undesirable to have the stability of one property negatively influenced by a neighbouring landowner failing to undertake or maintain mitigation measures to maintain the stability of the slope within their property.

11 However, the Committee accepted that the stability of the site was currently managed through a Land Management Plan imposed by a consent notice which applies to multiple properties above East Taieri. Furthermore, the central landslide feature was sufficiently distant from any building platform meaning the risk to high-capital structures is reduced. As such, the Committee were comfortable with this management approach in this instance. A consent notice on each title would impose responsibility for the central planting onto each land-holder.

12 The Committee also accepted Dr Lindqvist’s recommendation that drainage systems be installed to intersect and remove any surface water or spring water flow that might affect the stability of the ground in the vicinity of the building.

Landscape and Amenity

13 The Committee noted that the subject site includes a ridgeline visible from State Highway 1 and land to the southwest. It was also seen as a foreground or middle ground element in many views towards Saddle Hill. However, the Committee noted that it was outside of any landscape management area, and, therefore, there were no specific controls on siting or the design of structures. The subdivision would, however, create undersized rural-zoned sites on a relatively prominent piece of land, and the effects on the landscape from this density of development must be considered.

14 The Committee took guidance from the Environment Court in its determination on neighbouring developments which also sought to undertake development of a rural-residential nature within the rural zoned area. In those cases, the court was prepared grant consent for the subdivision into undersized lots at least in part because of the limited visual effects and impact on rural character but chose to decline the subdivision of the more visible land. The Committee noted that the proposed subdivision presented as visible from a number of vantage points.

15 The subdivision and subsequent development of new Lot 2 would introduce one additional dwelling to the property. In terms of visual dominance, the Committee considered that the building platform on Lot 2 was far less visually obvious than the existing platform which dominates the ridgeline of new Lot 1. The Committee considered that the building platform on new Lot 2 would integrate better with the built residential form fronting State Highway 1 and would nestle into the hillside rather than standing proud above it. The Committee recognised and accepted the applicant’s offer to surrender the existing building platform and believes that this would have a positive visual outcome when compared to that which was authorised for the site currently. Conditions on building design, height, colours, landscaping and earthworks for the new dwelling on new Lot 2 were imposed to ensure that buildings are sympathetic to the form, character and scale of the landscape.

16 The dwellings would be seen against a backdrop of land, specifically Saddle Hill. During the site visit, the Committee became immediately aware of the dominance of the barn/temporary dwelling structure located on new Lot 1. The structure was light-coloured and two-storied situated on the ridgeline. It was particularly prominent when viewed from Riccarton Road West by traffic heading southeast. The Committee acknowledged and would enable it to integrate more sympathetically into the landscape.

Easements

17 The Committee accepted the assessment of the existing easements undertaken in the s42A report and noted that no further easements are proposed as part of the proposal.

Infrastructure

18 The Committee acknowledged that the subject site was located within the Rural zone and outside of the Urban and Rural Water Supply Areas as shown in Appendix A and B of the Dunedin City Council Water Bylaw 2011. The Committee accepted the comments of the Council’s Water and Waste Consents officer that there was insufficient capacity in the network at this time to service either lot and any application for connection to reticulated services would not be supported by Water and Waste Services. Consequently, no reticulated water supply is available to the proposed subdivision. Stormwater collected from roof surfaces could be used for domestic water supply and should be stored in suitably sized tanks with a minimum of 25,000 litres of storage per lot. Water tank overflows were not to cause a nuisance to any neighbouring properties and should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled within the identified land instability areas.

19 As above, the Committee recognised that the primary source of potable water for the new lots would be rainwater collection from roof surfaces. It accepted the submission by the New Zealand Fire Service and advises the applicant that the new development would include the measures necessary to comply with the New Zealand Fire Service’s Code of Practice for Fire Fighting Water Supplies.

20 The Committee recognised that under the Reticulated Utility Services (Water, Wastewater or Stormwater) Policy adopted by the Council on 22 February 2010 the subdivision was not entitled to a reticulated wastewater connection. New Lot 1 currently had a dwelling (barn) which is serviced with a septic tank for wastewater drainage. In terms of on-site effluent disposal, the Committee recommended systems that had been specifically designed for the site by a suitably qualified person. The effluent disposal systems would need to be confined within the boundaries for each lot and must be undertaken in a manner that did not exacerbate land instability issues. The Committee considers it was appropriate to impose a consent notice regarding the need for a specifically designed effluent disposal system.

21 Regarding the disposal of stormwater, the Committee noted there were no reticulated stormwater services available for connection and that stormwater would be reused on the site for potable water supply. The Committee recognised the concerns raised by Ms Scott that the proposal might exacerbate stormwater issues already experienced by her property. Ms Scott accepted the law of natural drainage but the Committee was keen to ensure that the problem was not made worse by the any development on the site. As such, conditions of consent were imposed to manage any potential nuisance stormwater to adjoining property from rights of way, driveways, drain coils and water tank overflows. Stormwater would also be required to be actively managed to avoid exacerbating any risk of land instability.

22 The Committee acknowledged the ORC’s concerns that stormwater and wastewater discharges had the potential to exacerbate existing natural hazards on the site, namely land instability. The Committee was satisfied that stormwater and wastewater discharges arising from the proposed development could be adequately managed to address the matters raised in the submission by the ORC.

Transportation

23 The Committee accepted the advice from Council’s Transportation Planner/Engineer that the existing access provisions to the site were acceptable. It agreed that the proposal would likely result in only a minor increase in traffic using the right of way. Driveways within new Lots 1 and 2 would need to be formed to an acceptable standard and this had been included as an advice note. Overall, the Committee were comfortable that the proposal would have no more than minor adverse effects on the safety and functionality of the transport network.

Earthworks

24 The Committee noted that no consent for earthworks was sought with this application. It anticipated that earthworks would be required to form new accesses and the building platform. These earthworks could be assessed at the time of the development design. Accordingly, this consent did not address any earthworks for the subdivision associated with the development or redevelopment of the new lots, or earthworks for the formation of any new access, manoeuvring areas, or retaining walls (should any be required). Any earthworks design would need to be mindful of the hazard risk associated with the site and sought to avoid exacerbating land instability issues. The Committee advised the applicant that should future earthworks on-site breach the performance standards of Section 17 of the District Plan, further consent would be required. Land use consent would also be required for any structures, such as retaining walls supporting fill or surcharge, near to boundaries.

Archaeological Sites

25 The Committee are satisfied that there were no known archaeological sites on the subject sites, and neither Kai Tahu ki Otago nor Heritage New Zealand submitted on the application. However, the Committee were mindful that should any archaeological material be uncovered during any earthworks to develop the site, the applicant would need to obtain an archaeological authority before continuing further. This matter was administered by Heritage New Zealand in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Puhere Taonga Act 2014. An accidental discovery protocol was included as an advice note.

Other Matters

26 During the hearing, it came to light in the applicant’s evidence that they might be operating a commercial office and depot on the site. While not a matter to be considered as part of this consent application, the applicant was strongly advised to ensure the lawfulness of this use under the Operative Dunedin City District Plan rural zone rules. If the activity did breach the rural zone rules resource consent would be required.

27 The Committee noted that residential activity was already occurring on new Lot 1 and, as such, consider that it was appropriate to grant the land use consent in stages; Stage one being residential activity on new Lot 1 and Stage 2 being residential activity on new Lot 2.

Determination

28 Overall, the Committee was satisfied that any adverse effects of the proposal could be mitigated by conditions of consent as discussed above. The Committee especially noted the reduction in visual effects from the revised proposal for that permitted on the site, the careful management of the storm and waste water from the new developed area and the planting to manage the hazard risk.

29 With regard to the assessment of the objectives and policy, the Committee noted that the proposed District Plan was not far through the submission and decision-making process, the objectives and policies of the Operative Dunedin City District Plan had been given more consideration than those of the proposed District Plan. The Committee considered that the proposal was consistent with many of the objectives and policies of the operative Dunedin City District Plan and the proposed District Plan. The Committee felt that, while the proposal was inconsistent with those of amenity of Dunedin, rural productive worth, landscape, and the subdivision of rural land, it does not believe that the amended proposal was contrary to the relevant objectives and policies.

30 Overall, the Committee considered that the proposal satisfies both gateway tests contained in Section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991 and consideration to the granting of consent to the proposal.

31 The Committee considered that the proposed activity was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Otago and proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago.

32 The Committee noted that the "true exception" test was regularly applied by the Court to non-complying activities. It was considered that the test was no longer compulsory as determined in Mason Heights Property Trust v Auckland Council [2011] NZEnvC 175, para [88]. However, Mason Heights Property Trust v Auckland Council did note that the test can assist the Court in assessing whether issues of precedent were likely to arise and whether the proposal met the objectives and policies of the Plan by an alternative method. This approach was supported Cookson Road Character Preservation Society Inc v Rotorua District Council [2013] NZEnvC 194.

33 For completeness, the Committee recognised the applicant’s offer to surrender the existing building platform located on the eastern extent of new Lot 1 in favour of a building platform on new Lot 2 and the retention of the barn (or its replacement) as a residential unit meaning that overall built form would not be increased on the site. The Committee believed this set the application apart from other similar sites in the area and results in a true exception. As such, it would not threaten the integrity of the District Plan or establish an undesirable precedent for future applications.

34 The Committee assessed the application against the relevant sections of the Act namely; 5(2)(a), 5(2)(c), 6(b), 6(f), 7(b), 7(c), 7(f) and 7(g). Overall, the Committee found that the proposal, if undertaken as amended by the applicant and in compliance with conditions of 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 11.16 am.

CHAIRPERSON