 |
Hearings Committee
MINUTES
Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 16 March 2016, commencing at 9.00 am
PRESENT
|
Chairperson |
Andrew Noone |
|
|
|
Lee Vandervis |
Andrew Whiley |
|
IN ATTENDANCE |
John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Melissa Shipman (Processing Officer), Grant Fisher (Transport Planner/Engineer) and Peter Christos (Urban Designer) |
Governance Support Officers Pam Jordan, Andrea Barker and Wendy Collard
RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-345, 140 HIGHCLIFF ROAD, DUNEDIN
The Committee considered an application to establish and operation of residential activity with 25 retirement apartments and a clubroom at 140 Highcliff Road, Dunedin under Section 95 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:
Ezra Eini (Director, Shiel Hill Properties Ltd)
Avi Fadida (Director, Shiel Hill Properties Ltd)
Don Anderson (Consultant Planner)
Conrad Anderson (Consultant Planner)
There were four submitters present at the hearing.
· Mel and Jeremy Forlong
· Jeremy Shearer (on behalf of Mel and Jeremy Forlong)
· Raewyn Keane
· Ben Beck and Samantha West
· Peter Jones
Procedural Issues
There were no procedural matters raised.
Presentation of the Planner’s Report
The Planning Officer (Melissa Shipman) spoke to a summary of her report, giving an overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received. Ms Shipman provided a background to the subject site and commented that it was zoned Residential 1, with Highcliff Road being classified as a District Road and Bone Street classified as a Local Road.
Ms Shipman advised that land use consent for residential activity was sought by the applicant for 25 retirement apartments and an associated club room. She commented that it was intended that club rooms were to be operated in conjunction with the apartments and not separately as a licensed premises. She advised that the site was previously used as a licensed premise and consents were still in place for the tavern activity. Ms Shipman noted that the consent for the tavern formed part of the existing environment and it could be restarted at any time.
Ms Shipman advised that it was intended that the club rooms would be staffed and would be operated on a membership basis similar to a typical golf club. She commented that the 25 room residential activity would consist of 17 studio format apartments and eight two bedroom apartments.
Ms Shipman outlined her assessment of the objectives and policies and the effects of the proposal. She advised that in her opinion the proposal was not contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative and proposed plans but that she considered the effects of the proposal to be more than minor. Ms Shipman advised that her recommendation was that the consent be declined as the scale of proposal meant that it would not integrate successfully into the local environment.
The Applicant’s Presentation
Don Anderson (Consultant Planner) tabled and spoke to his submission on behalf of the applicant. Mr Anderson advised that the application was a unique proposal that would allow the reuse of existing buildings and provided for redevelopment of the remainder of the site for retirement housing. He commented that he considered the proposal would be in line with the Council’s own social housing strategy. Mr Anderson noted that it was not supported by the operative plan as the plan was written 20 years ago before the housing strategy had been written.
Mr Anderson outlined how the effects of the proposal would be mitigated and commented that the applicant was happy to work with the Transportation Department to finalise the appropriate solution to the safety issues with the Bone Street Highcliff Road intersection. Mr Anderson argued that reducing the proposal would seriously affect the economics of the it and that the provision for access from Highcliff Road would use up too much of the site due to the steep terrain.
Mr Anderson indicated that the applicant would be happy to accept conditions on the final design and appearance of the buildings to Highcliff Road and Bone Street and commented that applicant was happy with the proposed conditions in the planners report with the exception of conditions 4 and 8.
It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):
"That the meeting be adjourned until 11.00 am."
Motion carried
The meeting adjourned from 10.35 am to 10.53 am.
Submittters
Raewyn Keane spoke on behalf of Jason Keane's submission which raised concerns about the development. Ms Keane indicated that she was speaking to support the Frasers who lived at 5 Bone Street. She commented that the Frasers were elderly and they received care and support services which enabled them to live in their own b home. Ms Keane considered that vehicle access issues and increased traffic on Bone St would directly affect the Frasers. She commented that the crash statistics don't give the full picture of the safety issues with the intersection. Ms Keane expressed her concerns which included the impact of earthworks required and the proposed clubrooms.
Ms Keane commented that she considered there would be a detrimental effect on valuation of 5 Bone Street as the result of the proposal. In terms of the applicant’s statements regarding the purchase of the 5 Bone Street property, it was her understanding that there was no binding agreement in place and that negotiations had stalled. She suggested that the Frasers were effectively in a Catch 22 situation and if the proposal was to be approved, it needed to protect elderly residents.
Mel and Jeremy Forlong spoke in opposition to the proposal. Ms Forlong advised that their property at 148 Highcliff Road currently had the same views as people in the restaurant on the site and their outlook would be impacted by the proposed. She commented that they had a young family and had to put their development plans on hold pending the decision on the application. Ms Forlong commented on their concerns which included shadowing and privacy.
Mr and Ms Forlong commented on the issues they had previously experienced with the tavern that had arisen from parking in the street. They felt that if the proposal still had a main entrance off Highcliff Road a lack of parking would cause problems for them.
Mr Forlong commented that they had spoken to applicants and were told that the applicant was in process of purchasing Bone Street. He commented that he felt that other people would not be interested in buying their property in the current situation. Mr Forlong advised that they had planned to put extension on southern side of their dwelling and had developed a concept plan. He noted the proposal would impact on their plans as the proposal result in shading and cut out the view.
Ben Beck and Samantha West spoke in opposition to the proposal and advised that they had bought their property in 2014 to do up and sell. They expressed their concerns regarding the development which included loss of privacy and shading. They commented that as the result of the application they had put on hold plans to do up their property over summer and were concerned they might lose money on their house. They responded to questions on traffic issues, drainage and shading concerns.
Peter Jones spoke in opposition to the proposal plan. Mr Jones commented that he felt that in relation to providing for the elderly to continue living in community that the DCC already identified areas of Dunedin where more high density housing could be built. He felt that Highcliff Road was not such an area. Mr Jones commented that he considered that the proposed clubroom would have impact on parking and traffic flow. He identified that it was difficult to exit Bone Street onto Highcliff Road and more cars on Bone Street meant that there was greater potential for accidents. Mr Jones commented that if the proposal went ahead and if the car park was full there would be limited space for them to turn around on Bone Street and that shared driveways into Bone Street properties might then be used for turning.
Council Officers evidence
The Transport Planner/Engineer (Grant Fisher) outlined his concerns regarding the intersection and commented that the number one road safety issue for Dunedin was safety at intersections and he advised that Dunedin had the worst record in the country. He commented that in his view the sight distance issues with the intersection had not been adequately resolved in the applicants proposed mitigation.
The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) commented that the principal concern about the proposed develop was the bulk of the proposed building and he advised that the bulk was accentuated as the result of the atrium. Mr Christos also commented that the high site coverage on the site was combined with a lack of architectural detail for the building and an absence of landscaping.
It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):
"That the meeting be adjourned until 12.10 pm to allow the Planner to consider the review of her recommendation."
Motion carried
The meeting adjourned from 11.52 pm to 12.09 pm.
The Planner’s Review of her Recommendation
The Handling Officer reviewed her recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining her recommendation to decline consent on the basis of the transportation and amenity effects that would arise from the proposal. Ms Shipman advised that she considered the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site and noted that she was unsure whether the contract to purchase 5 Bone Street tabled by the applicant had the same effect as an affected party approval. She advised that it might be necessary for the Committee to obtain legal advice to clarify the matter.
The Applicant’s Response
Mr Anderson reiterated the positive aspects of the application and commented that providing housing for the elderly was in line with the Council’s own social housing strategy. He advised that the greatest effects would be on 5 Bone Street and the contract to purchase the property was as good as an affected party approval. Mr Anderson commented that the only condition on the contract was in relation to the resource consent. He advised that the applicant would be comfortable providing more information on shading.
In terms of transportation effects Mr Anderson commented that he considered that the transportation issues could be managed by conditions. Mr Anderson advised that the proposal should not be declined because of transportation issues and he felt that the Committee did not need to be concerned regarding density and coverage. Mr Anderson noted that the applicant would attend to urban design issues which could be also managed by conditions.
The meeting adjourned at 12.40 pm and reconvened in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers on Tuesday 21 June 2016 at 10.00 am.
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley
IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Melissa Shipman (Planner), Grant Fisher (Transport Planner/Engineer), Peter Christos (Urban Designer) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)
The Chairperson advised that the Committee had requested further information from the applicant which had been circulated to all submitters.
Presentation of the Planner’s Report on the further information
The Planner (Melissa Shipman) spoke to the additional information from the applicant and advised that the issues related to transportation had been addressed by the further information to the satisfaction of the Council Transport Planner/Engineer. In relation to amenity and urban design considerations, Ms Shipman advised that the small changes that had been made to the design did not adequately address the adverse amenity effects. She advised that she remained of the view that the bulk of the development was imposing and considered that the design changed had failed to address the effects on the residential amenity values.
The Applicant’s Presentation on the further information
Mr Anderson provided an update on the opportunities that the owners had undertaken since the last hearing which included that they had relicensed the original kitchen to produce sushi to various outlets and reopened the public bar to serve the locals.
In relation to further information, Mr Anderson advised that the applicant had taken on board the urban design comments and that they would be using the existing façade for some of the units to save costs. Mr Anderson commented on the changes that had been made to layout which included the relocation of fire escapes and a greater offset to 148 Highcliff Road which would improve mitigated of amenity environmental effects.
Mr Anderson advised that he was disappointed with the Urban Designer's comments and he did not know what more could be done. He commented that there were no specific urban design criteria in the District Plan that was relevant to the area or site and it’s only a consideration as the proposal was a non-complying activity. Mr Anderson advised that he felt that it was debatable whether the character of the site was residential. He commented that he was not asked to address residential amenity concerns in the request for further information and he did not think that urban design issues should be an important matter in the Committee’s considerations.
Mr Anderson commented that the Anderson Lloyd letter agreed with them in relation to the contract to purchase 5 Bone Street being the same as an affected party approval and therefore the effects of 5 Bone Street cannot be considered by the Committee.
Avi Fadida (Director of Shiel Hill Properties Ltd) advised that the applicant was committed to providing quality accommodation for the elderly. Mr Fadida commented that he was a businessman who not only wanted to make money but also to look after people.
Submitters on the further information
Mel and Jeremy Forlong advised that Jeremy Shearer was in attendance to speak on their behalf. Mr Shearer commented that the proposal would result in a large bulky development which would impact on the view from 148 Highcliff Road and increase shading. He advised that he considered the effects on the Forlongs were significant and noted that no offer of purchase was tabled by the applicants which would allow the Forlongs to leave. He discussed the proposed changes and the proposed planting and argued that these changes would not mitigate the effects. Mr Shearer commented that he considered the proposal would set a precedent for future developments.
In terms of privacy concerns Mr Shearer commented that the residents in the complex would be in their dwellings for long periods of time and be able to overlook the property at 148 Highcliff Road. He also noted that a hedge would be removed as a result of the construction process.
Jeremy Forlong responded to questions regarding their development plans and advised that at this stage they had only obtained concept plans. He commented that they had put on hold their plan to apply for building consent due to the proposal for next door. Mr Forlong advised that they did not see any benefit from extending their dwelling if the development went ahead.
Raewyn Keane expressed her concern in relation to the applicant’s statement that there was a sales and purchase agreement in place for 5 Bone Street subject to consent being granted. The owners and lawyers for the property at 5 Bone Street did not have that understanding. She advised that the design changes had shifted the building closer to 5 Bone Street.
The Chairperson advised that a further submission from Peter Jones had been received and tabled.
Council Officers Evidence on the further evidence
The Transport Engineer/Planner (Grant Fisher) advised that since the initial hearing he had had discussion with the applicant’s transportation expert and that he had considered the further information which had been provided. Mr Fisher commented that he was happy with the mitigation that had been proposed by the applicant and he now considered the effects of the proposal on the roading network would only be minor.
The Urban Designer (Peter Christos) advised that the further information provided had not change his views on the proposal. Mr Christos acknowledged the changes that had been made but commented that he considered a greater set back to Highcliff Road could have be put in place. He advised that there was only limited room provided to provide landscape screening due to the limited setbacks and high coverage. Mr Christos commented that he was also looking for textures as this was a way to help mitigate effects.
In response to question, Mr Christos commented that greater setback and landscape screening would be necessary to make a material difference to mitigating the effect of the bulk of the building.
It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)
"That the meeting be adjourned until 11.50 am."
Motion carried
The meeting adjourned at 11.34 am and reconvened at 11.48 am.
The Planner’s Review of their Recommendation on the further information
Ms Shipman advised that the transport issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Planner. In terms of amenity issues, she commented that the bulk of the building was still a concern and in her view the bulk was too great for the site and area. Ms Shipman advised that she considered the effects on privacy and views would be greater for 148 Highcliff Road other than what would be expected for a permitted baseline. She commented that a green wall would soften a blank façade but the building block and mass was still there. Ms Shipman advised that she felt that the applicant had not made enough changes to reduce the bulk of the building and mitigate adverse effects.
She commented that she still maintained her position that the application should be declined.
The Applicant’s Right of Reply on the further information
Mr Anderson advised that the owners sought consent for what they believed was the best use of the site and should consent to be declined they would have to make a decision regarding the use of the site.
Mr Anderson offered the opportunity for a condition that the final design should be approved by the Resource Consents Manager. He commented that he did not want the proposal turned down because of urban design issue and that on this basis the applicant would accept an increase in the yard in relation to the Forlong’s property by a further metre.
Mr Anderson advised that they accepted the proposed transportation conditions and that applicant's offer for external detailing would go a long way to addressing council departments concerns.
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 – 140 Highcliff Road |
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
MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2016, COMMENCING AT 12.06 PM
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley
IN ATTENDANCE: John Sule (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Melissa Shipman (Planner) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)
PART C:
1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2015-345, 140 HIGHCLIFF ROAD, DUNEDIN
The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation, to the points raised by the applicant and further information provided. It was noted that site visits had been conducted on 15 March and 20 June 2016.
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 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 being the establishment of 25 residential units in the form of a retirement village and a licensed clubroom at 140 Highcliff Road, Dunedin, being the land legally described as Lot 3 Deposited Plan 431251 (CFR 523050), subject to conditions imposed under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below.
That pursuant to section 116 of the Resource Management Act 1991, this consent must not commence until the purchase of the property at 5 Bone Street by the applicant had been completed.
Conditions:
1 The proposal must be constructed and operated generally in accordance with the relevant details submitted with the resource consent application, the evidence and submissions provided at the hearings on 16 March and 2 June 2016 and the plans and further information provided on 9 May 2016 except where modified by the conditions below:
2 The residential activity on the site must be operated as a retirement village as specified in the application details.
3 The clubroom facility must operate in the manner specified in the application as a clubroom for members. The clubroom must not operate outside of the following hours:
· 8am-11pm Sunday to Thursday
· 8am to 12midnight Friday & Saturday
Urban Design and Landscaping
4 A 3 metre yard setback was to be provided along the boundary with the property at 148 Highcliff Road.
5 A planting plan was to be prepared for the yard adjoining 148 Highcliff Road by a suitably qualified landscape architect that would assist in softening the effects of building bulk and in maintaining privacy.
6 Landscaping for the yard adjoining 148 Highcliff Road site and for the remainder of the site was to be established within 3 months of the issue of the code compliance certificate for the building and it was to be maintained on the site thereafter. Any dead or moribund plantings were to be immediately replaced.
7 The large section of blank façade on the Bone Street frontage was to be provided with additional articulation to enhance its compatibility with the Bone Street residential environment. The articulation was not to be achieved through painting only and openings, materials and other architectural devices are to be considered.
8 The section of the new building adjoining the boundary with 5 Bone Street that was shown with a monopitch roof was to be with provided with a low angle hipped roof to assist its integration with the existing built environment.
9 Colours for the building were to be selected and used to distinguish separate parts of the building. Colours were to be recessive and compatible with the existing built and natural environment.
10 The fence proposed for the Highcliff Road frontage was to have a minimum visual permeability of 40%.
11 The required planting plan, architectural details for the articulation of the Bone Street frontage, final colour scheme and fence details were to be submitted to the Resource Consents Manager for approval. Construction must not commence until approval is obtained.
Transportation
12 Detailed engineering plans for all proposed roading works must be submitted to and approved by the Transport prior to construction. The roading works must be completed prior to the activity commencing operation.
13 The redundant vehicle crossing on Highcliff Road must be reinstated as footpath, kerb, and channel at the applicant's cost.
14 The surface of all parking, associated access and manoeuvring areas must be formed, hard surfaced and adequately drained for their entirety, and parking spaces permanently marked in accordance with the application plans.
15 At least one adequately dimensioned mobility parking space must be provided within the site. The mobility parking space must be permanently marked in accordance with District Plan dimensions.
16 Specific provisions must be made within the site for refuse collection, in order to reduce effects of concentrating a collection point on the adjacent transport network.
Backflow Requirements
17 An RPZ boundary backflow prevention device must be installed by a plumber, in accordance with the Code of Practice for Boundary Backflow Prevention (June 2013) and to the approval of the Education and Compliance Officer (Water), Water and Waste Services. The applicant was advised to contact the Education and Compliance Officer if further guidance was required prior to installation of the device.
New Water Service Connections
18 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 to each unserviced proposed lot. Details of how each proposed lot was to be serviced for water must accompany the “Application for Water Supply”.
19 Upon approval by the Water and Waste Services Business Unit, water service connections must be installed in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.6.2 of the Dunedin Code of Subdivision and Development 2010.
Wastewater Services
20 The wastewater for the upper floor which was level with Highcliff Road was to be piped via a private lateral to the 150mm wastewater main on Highcliff road. The wastewater from the remainder of the development could be discharged to the Bone Street wastewater main.
Stormwater Services
21 A Stormwater Management Plan for the subdivision must be provided to Water and Waste Services for approval. The Stormwater Management Plan must outline how stormwater from each lot of the subdivision would be managed to ensure post-development flows did not exceed pre-development flows, and identify and address any downstream effects of the stormwater generated by the development, including any mitigation required.
Construction Noise
22 All construction noise must comply with the following noise limits:
|
Time of Week |
Time Period |
Leq (dBA) |
L max(dBA) |
|
Weekdays |
0730-1800 |
75 |
90 |
|
1800-2000 |
70 |
85 |
|
|
2000-0730 |
45 |
75 |
|
|
Saturdays |
0730-1800 |
75 |
90 |
|
1800-2000 |
45 |
75 |
|
|
2000-0730 |
45 |
75 |
|
|
Sundays and public Holidays |
0730-1800 |
55 |
85 |
|
1800-2000 |
45 |
75 |
|
|
2000-0730 |
45 |
75 |
Note:The lower noise limits that applied on Saturday Evening, Sunday and public holidays would likely mean that no work with machinery could occur on site at these times
Earthworks
23 A construction management plan should be submitted to, and approved by, the Resource Consents Manager prior to demolition/construction works being undertaken in association with the proposed development.
24 The consent holder must provide notice to the Resource Consent Monitoring team by email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz of the start date of the works. This notice must be provided at least five (5) working days before the works are to commence.
25 Earthworks must not commence until a building consent had been issued.
26 Surplus excavation material was to be disposed of away from the site to a Council approved destination.
27 The consent holder must establish a construction phase vehicle access point to the site and ensure it was used by construction vehicles. The access was to be stabilised by using a geotextile fabric and either topped with crushed rock or aggregate. The access was to be designed to prevent sediment runoff.
28 All walls over 1.5m, or a surcharge / slope, including terracing, require design, specification and supervision by appropriately qualified person/s.
29 Any earth fill over 0.6m thick supporting foundations must be specified and supervised by a suitably qualified person in accordance with NZS 4431-1989 Code of Practice for Earthfill for Residential Development.
30 To ensure effective management of erosion and sedimentation on the site during earthworks and as the site is developed, measures were to be taken and devices were to be installed, where necessary, to:
· divert clean runoff away from disturbed ground;
· control and contain stormwater run-off;
· avoid sediment laden run-off from the site; and
· protect existing drainage infrastructure sumps and drains from sediment run-off."
Motion carried
Reasons for the Decision
1 The Committee agreed with the applicant and Ms Shipman that the proposed activity was not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the operative and proposed District Plans and consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Otago. The proposal therefore satisfied the gateway test contained in Section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Committee could consider grating the consent following an assessment under Section 104 and part 2 of the RMA.
2 The Committee noted that the existing environment included a commercial tavern and restaurant activity that was authorised by a land use consent. The facility included a large open car park and minimal landscaping. The Committee considered that the residential character of the site was already significantly affected by the commercial use of the site as a tavern and restaurant.
3 The Committee considered that the use of the site for retirement housing was an appropriate use for the site. There would be significant future demand for retirement housing and this proposal would potentially assist in providing for elderly residents from the local community to continue to reside in the area. The Committee had imposed conditions to ensure it operated as a retirement village as described in the application.
4 The Committee was satisfied with the mitigation proposed to address transport related effects and it was satisfied that the transport effects of the proposal would be acceptably managed by conditions.
5 Although the proposal significantly exceeded site coverage the Committee noted that the worst amenity effects of the proposal would be in relation to the site at 5 Bone Street that the applicant had agreed to purchase. The Committee accepted the legal advice that the contract to purchase could be considered as an affected party approval. As a consequence, the Committee had not considered the adverse effects on the property at 5 Bone Street in deciding on this application.
6 The Committee had considered the adverse amenity effects on the property at 148 Highcliff Road which also adjoined the site. It noted that the permitted baseline would provide for a dwelling to be established along the southern boundary of 148 Highcliff Road with a 2m setback. A complying dwelling at the location would also potentially impact on outlook to a similar extent as the proposed development. Despite this the Committee acknowledged that the length and bulk of the building were beyond what would be expected from a non-fanciful residential use. The Committee noted that the applicant had offered a 3m setback along the boundary this would assist with mitigating the bulk of the building through planting. It had imposed conditions to secure a 3m setback in relation to the boundary and to require meaningful mitigation planting to assist in softening the effects of the building.
7 In terms of the wider effects of the proposal the Committee agreed with the applicant that the effect of the bulk was reduced in relation to the Highcliff Road by the slope of the site. The Committee acknowledged that there was blank wall facing Bone Street and streetscape impacts. As a result, it had also imposed conditions in relation to colour, landscape planting, fencing and the treatment of the Bone Street façade to assist with the integration of the this building into its setting.
8 Having regard to the existing environment, the Committee considered that the effects of the proposed retirement complex with mitigation in place would be acceptable. It had also imposed conditions to ensure the effects of services and the effects during the construction phase are appropriately managed.
9 The Committee considered that the proposal was a “true exception” due to the land use history of the site. The site was not residential in character and had been established and operated as a commercial activity for many years. As a consequence, the Committee considered approval of the application would not in threaten the integrity of the District Plan or establish an undesirable precedent for future applications.
10 The Committee 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 12.38 pm.
CHAIRPERSON