Notice of Meeting:
I hereby give notice that an ordinary
meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:
Date: Monday
3 October 2016
Time: 1.00
pm
Venue: Council
Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin
Sue
Bidrose
Council
PUBLIC AGENDA
|
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.
ITEM TABLE
OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Public
Forum 4
2 Apologies 4
3 Confirmation
of Agenda 4
4 Declaration
of Interest 5
5 Confirmation
of Minutes 6
5.1 Ordinary Council meeting
- 19 September 2016 6
Minutes of Committees
6 Hearings
Committee - 23 August 2016 22
7 Hearings
Committee - 24 August 2016 42
8 Hearings
Committee - 31 August 2016 52
9 Development
Contributions Subcommittee - 2 September 2016 67
Reports
10 Annual
Reports of the Subsidiaries and Associate Companies of Dunedin City Holdings
Limited 2015/2016 72
11 Dunedin
City Council Annual Report 2016 74
12 Delegations
in the Interregnum Period 76
Notice of Motion
13 Notice
of Motion - Transfer of Public Transport Functions 81
Part A Reports (Ordinary Council has
power to decide these matters)
14 Acknowledgement
of Retiring Community Board Members 83
15 Acknowledgement
of Service of Retiring Members 85
16 Final
Meeting of Triennium
Mayor Cull to comment on triennium.
Resolution to Exclude the Public 87
1 Public
Forum
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
2 Apologies
An apology has
been received from Cr Hilary Calvert.
That the Council:
Accepts the apology from Cr Hilary Calvert.
3 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.
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.
Confirmation of Minutes
Ordinary Council meeting - 19 September 2016
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Ordinary
Council meeting held on 19
September 2016 as a correct record.
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Minutes
of Ordinary Council meeting held on 19 September 2016
|
7
|
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 19 September
2016, commencing at 1.00 pm
PRESENT
|
Mayor
|
Mayor
Dave Cull
|
|
|
Deputy
Mayor
|
Cr
Chris Staynes
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr
David Benson-Pope
|
Cr
Hilary Calvert
|
|
|
Cr
Doug Hall
|
Cr
Aaron Hawkins
|
|
|
Cr
Mike Lord
|
Cr
Jinty MacTavish
|
|
|
Cr
Andrew Noone
|
Cr
Neville Peat
|
|
|
Cr Lee
Vandervis
|
Cr
Andrew Whiley
|
|
|
Cr
Kate Wilson
|
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Sue Bidrose
(Chief Executive Officer), Sandy Graham (General Manager Strategy and
Governance), Andrea Jones (Communications Team Leader), Kristy Rusher
(Manager Civic and Legal), John Christie (Director Enterprise Dunedin),
Bernie Hawke (Group Manager Arts and Culture), Joy Gunn (Manager Events and
Community Development), Kevin Taylor (Property Manager), Ashley Reid (Parks
and Recreation Planner), Jendi Paterson (Recreation Planning and Facilities
Manager), Tom Dyer (Acting Group Manager Parks and Recreation), Nicola
Pinfold (Group Manager Community and Planning) and Glen Hazelton (Team Leader
Urban Design)
|
Governance Support Officer Pam Jordan
1 Opening
Reverend Anne Thomson, First Church, opened
the meeting with a prayer.
2 Public
Forum
2.1 Rates
Relief Applications
Rodney Moore
(General Manager, Forbury Park Trotting Club) and Hannah Catchpole (General
Manager, Otago Racing Club) spoke regarding their respective rates relief
applications to be considered in the non-public part of the meeting.
Mr Moore advised
that both General Managers had been in their positions for less than six months
and the applications had been made prior to them being in their roles.
They supported the initiative of the Grants Subcommittee for rolling over the
rates relief for a year. Mr Moore commented on the history of the Club
and its presence in South Dunedin, the large cost of repairing damage from the
2015 flood, and the Club's keenness to be involved in a bigger discussion
regarding South Dunedin and how the Forbury Park Trotting Club could contribute
to the Council's vision for South Dunedin in future. He considered that
gambling and rates relief was a separate discussion.
Ms Catchpole
welcomed an opportunity to take the next step to engage and work
collectively. The Otago Racing Club saw Wingatui as a key venue that the
public used. The Club appreciated this was an important issue and would
like more time to work with the Council.
2.2 Light
Pollution
Ben Hawke (Taieri
College), Star Uriaro (Kavanagh College), Sylvie Latton (Kavanagh College),
Gabe Vink (Kavanagh College), Alex Livingstone (Tahuna Intermediate) and Josh
Meikle (Kavanagh College) each spoke to the Council on their findings from
research projects they had undertaken on light pollution.
Some students'
projects included taking light readings at various points in the city and
comparing what stars could be seen. More stars could be seen in the outer
areas of Dunedin where there was less light pollution, than in central
Dunedin. It was suggested that if Dunedin improved its light pollution it
could market itself as a dark skies city and attract tourists.
Other students
had studied blue lights from various devices and how they could adversely
affect sleep quality and health. They were concerned at the potential
effect of LED street lights in this regard.
The group asked
for the Council to be mindful of light pollution and harmful health effects
when making decisions. They asked that no LED lights above 2200k should
be used, that they should be used in the centre of the city rather than
suburbs, and that the colour of the bulbs should also be considered.
The group members
also responded to questions from Councillors.
|
3 Apologies
|
|
|
Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):
That the Council:
Accepts the apologies from Cr John Bezett and Cr Richard Thomson.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/101)
|
|
4 Confirmation
of agenda
|
|
|
Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):
That the Council:
Confirms the agenda with the following alteration:
"Heritage
Rates Relief2016/2017 Report One" to be considered in public.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/102)
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Andrew
Whiley):
That Item 26, South Dunedin Community Hub, be deferred to an early
meeting of the new incoming Council after 8 October 2016 because there has
been insufficient time or opportunity to gauge community feedback on this
very important proposal that has been decades in coming to a decision.
Division
The Council
voted by division.
For: Crs Hilary
Calvert, Doug Hall, Mike Lord, Andrew Noone, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley
(6).
Against: Crs Dave Cull, Chris Staynes, David
Benson-Pope, Aaron Hawkins, Jinty MacTavish, Neville Peat and Kate Wilson
(7).
The division
was declared LOST by 7 votes to 6.
|
|
|
Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):
That the Council:
Confirms the agenda incorporating the
amendment.
.Motion carried (CNL/2016/103) Cr Lee Vandervis recorded
his vote against.
|
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.
6 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
6.1 Ordinary Council
meeting - 1 August 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 1 August 2016 as a correct record.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/104)
|
Minutes
of Committees
|
7 Hearings
Committee - 16 March 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):
That the Council:
a) Confirms the
minutes the Hearings Committee held on 16 March 2016 as a correct record (140
Highcliff Road, Dunedin).
Motion carried (CNL/2016/105)
|
|
8 Hearings
Committee - 1 April 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Lee Vandervis/Cr Doug Hall):
That the Council:
a) Confirms
the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 1 April 2016 as a correct
record (27 King Street, Mosgiel).
Motion carried (CNL/2016/106)
|
|
9 Hearings
Committee - 17 May 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):
That the Council:
a) Confirms the
minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 17 May 2016 as a correct record
(147 Church Road, Merton).
Motion carried (CNL/2016/107)
|
|
10 Hearings
Committee - 21 July 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Lee Vandervis):
That the Council:
a) Confirms
the minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 21 July 2016 as a correct
record (38 Richmond Street, Dunedin).
Motion carried (CNL/2016/108)
|
|
11 Community and
Environment Committee - 29 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Kate
Wilson):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (1-14) and public forum of the minutes of the Community and Environment Committee
meeting held on 29 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/109)
|
|
12 Planning and
Regulatory Committee - 30 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Aaron
Hawkins):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (1-6) of the minutes of the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting held on 30
August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/110)
|
|
13 Infrastructure
Services Committee - 30 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Kate Wilson/Cr Mike Lord):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (1-8) of the minutes of the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting held on 30
August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/111)
|
|
14 Economic
Development Committee - 5 September 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Andrew
Whiley):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (1-6) of the minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting held on 5
September 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/112)
|
|
15 Finance Committee
- 5 September 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Cr Doug Hall):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (1-5) of the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting held on 5 September 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/113)
|
|
16 Audit and Risk
Subcommittee - 28 June 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Cr Chris
Staynes):
That the Council
a) Notes Part
A items (1-7) of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting held on 28 June
2016.
b) Takes Part
C items of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee held on 28 June
2016 in the non-public part of the meeting.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/114)
|
|
17 Audit and Risk
Subcommittee - 2 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Cr Chris
Staynes):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
public part of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee meeting held on 2 August
2016.
b) Takes Part
C items of the minutes of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee held on 2 August
2016 in the non-public part of the meeting.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/115)
|
|
18 Sustainability
Audit Subcommittee - 15 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Doug Hall):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (1-5, 7-10) of the minutes of the Sustainability Audit Subcommittee meeting held on 15
August 2016.
b) Approves the
following Part B item of the minutes of the Sustainability Audit
Subcommittee meeting held on 15 August 2016:
Item 6: Sustainability
Within Building Services Activity.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/116)
|
|
19 Grants
Subcommittee - 12 July 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Kate
Wilson):
That the Council:
a) Notes Part
A items (2-6) and public forum of the minutes of the Grants Subcommittee meeting held on 12
July 2016
b) Approves the
following Part B items of the minutes of the Grants Subcommittee
meeting held on 12 July 2016:
Item 7 Otago Racing Club and Forbury
Trotting Club – Consideration of Decline Appeals.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/117)
|
Minutes
of Community Boards
|
20 Waikouaiti Coast
Community Board - 10 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
minutes of the Waikouaiti
Coast Community Board meeting held on 10 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/118)
|
|
21 Otago Peninsula
Community Board - 11 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
minutes of the Otago
Peninsula Community Board meeting held on 11 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/119)
|
|
22 Strath Taieri
Community Board - 11 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
minutes of the Strath
Taieri Community Board meeting held on 11 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/120)
|
|
23 Mosgiel Taieri
Community Board - 16 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
minutes of the Mosgiel
Taieri Community Board meeting held on 16 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/121)
|
|
24 Chalmers
Community Board - 17 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
minutes of the Chalmers
Community Board meeting held on 17 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/122)
|
|
25 Saddle Hill
Community Board - 18 August 2016
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Andrew Noone/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the
minutes of the Saddle
Hill Community Board meeting held on 18 August 2016.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/123)
|
Reports
|
26 South Dunedin
Community Hub
|
|
|
A report from Services and Development
provided the Council with the analysis of potential South Dunedin Community
Hub locations and a recommendation on where the South Dunedin Community Hub
should be located. The report also provided Council with a summary of
community feedback on the proposal for a South Dunedin Community Hub and
locations that were considered.
|
|
|
Staff responded to questions from
Councillors on the sites examined, the process followed, people's feedback
about what they wanted in a community hub, negotiations, community
engagement, existing tenants, linkages, parking issues and the Athfield
Report.
|
|
|
Moved (Mayor Dave Cull/Cr Chris Staynes):
That the Council:
Adjourns the meeting.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/124)
The
meeting adjourned from 2.55 pm to 3.12 pm.
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Jinty
MacTavish/Cr David Benson-Pope):
That the
Council:
a) Progresses further community
engagement with the South Dunedin community around the location and design of
the South Dunedin Community Hub, including ways to mitigate concerns or
incorporate ideas raised through consultation to date.
b) Approves in principle the concept
of a South Dunedin Community Hub with the library and service components
based around one of the remaining King Edward Street options.
c) Approves the preferred concept
to develop a combined three-site community hub which links the Gasworks
(Arthur Stone building), the Rankeilor Street Carpark, and 168 King Edward
Street (the former BNZ) - but leaving the PACT building in the investigation
for consideration as the King Edward Street site also.
d) Authorises Property to test
locations, services and facility options, and to negotiate with property
owners and tenants where necessary.
e) Notes that a
report will be provided on the outcome of the negotiations and community
engagement, to inform a final decision as part of the 2017/18 Annual Plan
process, and that no purchase of any King Edward Street site for the library
and service component will progress without coming back to Council.
There was debate on the motion.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/125)
|
|
27 Ara Toi and City
of Literature Update
|
|
|
A report from Services and Development
provided an update setting out delivery on Ara Toi Otepoti: Our Creative
Future: Dunedin’s Arts and Culture Strategy during 2015/16.
|
|
|
Staff responded to questions from
Councillors.
Thanks were conveyed to staff for their
efforts so far.
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Chris Staynes/Cr Neville Peat):
That the Council:
a) Notes the Ara
Toi and City of Literature Update report.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/126)
|
|
28 Review Reserves
Bylaw 2005
|
|
|
A report
from Parks and Recreation confirmed that a review of the Dunedin City Council
Reserves Bylaw 2005 was underway. The Reserves
Bylaw 2005 was due for review prior to 30 April 2017 in accordance with
section 159 of the Local Government Act 2002.
|
|
|
Staff responded to questions from
Councillors.
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Hilary Calvert/Cr Andrew
Noone):
That the Council:
a) Notes that
a review of the Reserves Bylaw 2005 has commenced and is programmed to be
completed before 30 April 2017.
b) Agrees
that the scope of the review is to include the current bylaw clauses,
together with any necessary amendments to other bylaws concerning the use of
vehicles within reserves and dogs within reserves.
c) Notes that
a report recommending next steps will be presented to a future Council
meeting.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/127)
|
|
29 Heritage Rates
Relief 2016/2017 Report One
|
|
|
A report
from Community and Planning concerned rates relief recommendations for five
earthquake strengthening and re-use projects. The applications met the
purpose of the 'Contestable Fund for Rates Relief for Heritage Buildings'
policy, which offered relief as an incentive for restoration and upgrade, and recognised the
investment in seismic, fire, and other upgrades on heritage buildings.
Details and recommendations for each project were provided.
The report also signalled two projects
that were likely to be eligible for the second rates relief policy adopted by
Council, the 'Contestable Fund for Rates Relief for the Comprehensive Re-use
of Heritage Buildings' ("rates freeze") policy. It was suggested that these projects were offered two years rates
relief under the first re-use policy during the construction period before
they became eligible and transition to the "rates freeze" policy.
|
|
|
Cr Hilary Calvert withdrew from the
meeting at 3.53 pm.
Staff responded to questions from
Councillors.
|
|
|
Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Kate
Wilson):
That the Council:
a) Grants 100% rates relief (based on the general rate amount of $1 944.16)
for two years to Big Steam Investments Limited for
the comprehensive re-use of 135 Cumberland Street. The project
will transition to the "rates freeze" scheme once completed and
re-valued. The rates relief to commence in the 2016/17 financial year.
b) Grants 30% rates relief (based
on the general rate amount of $12,072.84) for one year to Van Aart Sycamore
Lawyers Limited for the adaptive re-use of the attic space at 205 Princes
Street. The rates relief to commence in the 2016/17 financial year.
c) Grants 50% rates relief (based
on the general rate amount of $5,107.74) for one year to Hugh Chin for the
seismic upgrade of 274 George Street. The rates relief to commence in
the 2016/17 financial year.
d) Grants 50% rates relief (based
on the general rate amount of $9,489.14) for one year to Tom and Sally Haw
for the seismic upgrade of 349 George Street. The rates relief to
commence in the 2016/17 financial year.
e) Grants 100% rates relief (based
on the general rate amount of $3,250.38) for two years to Zeal Land Limited
for the comprehensive re-use of 43 Crawford Street. The project will
transition to the "rates freeze" scheme once completed and
re-valued. The rates relief to commence in the 2016/17 financial year.
f) Grants 100% rates relief (based
on the general rate amount of $2,621.97) for one year to Willowstone Limited
for the comprehensive re-use of 6A Willowbank. The rates relief to
commence in the 2016/17 financial year.
g) Grants 100% rates relief (based
on the general rate amount of $1,431.72) for one year to Geoffrey Anderson for the seismic upgrade of 282 South
Road. The rates relief to commence in the 2016/17 financial year.
h) Approves the publication of the
decisions and minutes once the applicants have been notified of the
decisions.
Motion carried (CNL/2016/128)
|
Cr Benson-Pope conveyed the Council's
thanks to Dr Glen Hazelton, who was leaving the Council, for his work which had
added to the beauty and development of the city. He commented on the
letters of commendation received regarding what the city looked like, his
relationships with stakeholders, and the various tools he had developed over
time. He acknowledged Glen's contribution to Dunedin and wished him well for
the future.
Cr Hilary Calvert returned to the meeting
at 4.00 pm.
|
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, exclude 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 - 1 August 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.
|
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 Audit and Risk Subcommittee - 28 June 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)(h)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities.
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)(a)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the
privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.
S6(a)
The making available of the information would be likely to
prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention,
investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.
S7(2)(c)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any
person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any
enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to
prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same
source and it is in the public interest that such information should
continue to be supplied.
S7(2)(c)(ii)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person
has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any
enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to
damage the public interest.
|
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.
|
|
|
C3 Audit and Risk Subcommittee - 2 August 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)(h)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities.
S7(2)(c)(ii)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any
person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any
enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to
damage the public interest.
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)(c)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any
person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any
enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to
prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same
source and it is in the public interest that such information should
continue to be supplied.
S7(2)(c)(ii)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any
person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any
enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to
damage the public interest.
S7(2)(a)
The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the
privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.
S6(b)
The making available of the information would be likely to
endanger the safety of a 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.
|
|
|
C4 Annual Review - Dunedin City Council, Treasury Risk
Management Policy
|
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.
|
|
|
C5 Proposed Development of DCC Owned Central City Site
|
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
report is confidential to protect Council's position in respect of the sale
and development of the Moray Place and Filleul Street site.
|
|
C6 Rates Relief Grant Application
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
C7 Lawson Street - Access Options
|
S7(2)(g)
The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain
legal professional privilege.
S7(2)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
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
report is confidential because release of the information could prejudice
negotiations with affected landowners. The report also provides
details of Council's legal position which is privileged and will need to be
relied on if negotiations fail.
|
|
C8 Emergency Management Shared Service Review Delegation
|
S7(2)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
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/2016/129)
|
The
meeting moved into confidential at 4.01 pm.
Minutes of Committees
Hearings Committee - 23 August 2016
gg
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Confirms the
minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 23 August 2016 as a correct record
(82 Riccarton Road East, Mosgiel)
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
A
|
Minutes
of Hearings Committee held on 23 August 2016
|
23
|
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;
(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, date18
May 2016;
(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.’
‘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 2.’
‘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’
‘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 was cleared.’
‘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
Hearings Committee
- 24 August 2016
gg
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Confirms the
minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 24 August 2016 as a correct record
(10 Riccarton Road West, Mosgiel)
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
A
|
Minutes
of Hearings Committee held on 24 August 2016
|
43
|
Hearings Committee
MINUTES
Minutes of
an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room,
Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 24 August 2016,
commencing at 9.00 am
PRESENT
|
Chairperson
|
Cr
Andrew Noone
|
|
|
|
Cr Lee
Vandervis
|
Cr
Andrew Whiley
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Kirstyn
Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor) and Shane Roberts (Consultant
Planner)
|
Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard
1 RESOURCE
CONSENT APPLICATION SUB 2016-34, 10 RICCARTON ROAD WEST, MOSGIEL
The Committee considered an
application for a subdivision to create two lots at 10 Riccarton Road West,
Mosgiel.
The committee was required to make
a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the
Resource Management Act 1991.
The Chairperson
advised that Martin Dillon from the Mosgiel Taieri Community Board would no
longer on the hearings panel for this application.
The applicant was
represented by:
· Kurt Bowen (Registered Surveyor)
· John and Dianne Sebelin (Applicants)
There was one
submitter present at the hearing.
· Brian Miller
Procedural
Issues
There were no
procedural matters raised.
Presentation
of the Planner’s Report
The Consultant
Planner (Shane Roberts) spoke to a summary of his report and provided an overview
of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and
the submissions received.
Mr Roberts commented that a Resource Consent was sought
to subdivide two existing certificates of title into two new lots. He
advised that proposed Lot 1 would comprise of 19.6ha and would front Riccarton
Road West, while proposed Lot 2 comprised of 19.4ha would be a rear site which
utilised a leg-in from Riccarton Road West. Mr Roberts commented that the
Owhiro Steam ran through the site, along with a series of drainage runners and
an ORC scheduled drain. He noted that the current use of the site was
vacant farmland; however a land use consent was granted on 22 January 2016 for
a second residential dwelling on the property of 10 Riccarton Road and,
therefore, two residential units were currently authorised for the 10 Riccarton
Road property. Mr Roberts commented that LUC-2015-577 was assessed as
controlled activity and, as such, the Council was obliged to grant the consent
but could impose conditions. Conditions imposed on the land use consent
defined the location of the two proposed houses by two 40m by 40m building
platforms, the minimum floor level for the dwellings and an upgrade to the
access to the site.
Mr Roberts
acknowledged that under the Operative Dunedin City District Plan, the site was
zoned Rural and the proposal complied with the 15ha lot size requirement and
was therefore a restricted discretionary activity. He commented that
under the Proposed Dunedin City District Plan, the site would be zoned Rural
– Taieri Plains. Under the proposed plan, both proposed lots were
less than the 40ha requirement for the zone and the
activity was assessed as a non-complying activity.
Mr Roberts
reminded the Committee that the Dunedin City Council sought a declaration from
the Environment Court to make the rules which related to the minimum site size
for rural zones to have immediate legal effect therefore the proposal was also
caught by those provisions. However he commented that little weight could be
afforded to the provisions of the Proposed District Plan because submissions
had been received in opposition to those rules and no decisions had yet been
released.
Mr Roberts
concluded that the principal effects for the subdivision were less than minor,
particularly when he had regard to the land use consent that existed for two
dwellings on the site. He commented that he also considered that, in
terms of the objectives and policies of the relevant district plans, the
proposal was consistent with the objectives and policies of the Operative
District Plan, but contrary to those of the proposed district plan which he
noted was a reflection in the change of density outcomes sought. As the
proposal passed one of the section 104D gateway tests, he advised that the
Committee were able to consider granting the consent. Overall, Mr Roberts
recommended that the Committee grant consent.
The Applicant’s Presentation
Kurt Bowen (Registered Surveyor) tabled and spoke his evidence. Mr Bowen
commented that essentially the proposed subdivision was a boundary alignment
between two existing titles and would not result in additional lots or any
greater residential development than that which was already approved for the
property through LUC-2015-577. He advised that he agreed with the
processing planner’s assessment of the relevant rules of both the
operative and proposed District Plans.
Mr Bowen noted in
respect to the Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) submission that building platforms
and minimum floor levels had been identified at the time that the land use
consent (LUC-2015-577) was approved. He commented that these platforms
were positioned on higher areas of the site and the elevated floor levels were
intended to reduce the flood risk to the dwellings. Mr Bowen advised that
the proposed subdivision would not interfere with the operation or function of
the ORC scheduled drain; noting specifically that the residential activity
approved by the land use consent was to be located some distance from the
drain. In response to questions, Mr Bowen advised that he considered that
the boundary could be configured so that the drain was contained entirely
within one lot. He advised that he disagreed with ORC that the granting
of the proposal would set a precedent and believed that once the proposed plan
became operative any precedent would be extinguished. Notwithstanding,
his view on precedent, Mr Bowen commented that the existing land use consent
and underlying title configuration set the application apart from others.
Mr Bowen
commented on the neutral submission by the New Zealand Fire Service which
requested that if the Committee were of a mind to grant consent, that
conditions relating to adequate firefighting water supply and suitable access
to the site be imposed upon the consent. Mr Bowen advised that the
applicant accepted these conditions.
Mr Bowen
acknowledged the neutral submission of Mr Charles Bradfield and Ms Katherine
Brooks and the opposing submission of Mr Brian Miller which raised issues of
the widening of Riccarton Road West, the impact on rural amenity and high class
soils and the use of the right-of-way (ROW) access off Riccarton Road West by
an adjacent nursery. Mr Bowen advised that he considered that the issue
of road widening fell outside of the scope of the consent; however noted that a
building line restriction along the Riccarton Road West frontage of the subject
site would be carried down onto new Lot 1. With regard to the access to
the site, Mr Bowen advised that the use of the access, by the nursery located
at 70 Riccarton Road, was a right imposed on the certificate of title and that
the applicants had no control over this use. He advised that the
applicants could lawfully use the driveway to access the two units which were
authorised by LUC-2015-577. With respect to the impacts on rural amenity
and high class soils, Mr Bowen reminded the Committee that land use consent had
already been issued for the site and suitable building platforms had already
been authorised. He acknowledged that reducing the flooding risk to the
dwellings had been the primary concern in the positioning of the building
platforms rather than the protection of high class soils. However, Mr
Bowen advised that he also noted that the 40m by 40m building platforms were a
small percentage of the high class soils on the site overall.
John Sebelin (the applicant) spoke to the application and advised that the
immediate legal effect of the rural subdivision rules in the propose plan had
taken them by surprise. Mr Sebelin commented that they had always
intended to subdivide the site as they headed into retirement and were dismayed
when they realised that the development potential of the site had been reduced
by the proposed plan. He noted that the pastoral use of the site would
continue. Mr Sebelin requested that the consent be granted.
Submitters
Brian Miller spoke to his submission and in particular the widening of Riccarton
Road West; the use of the access by the nursery located at 70 Riccarton Road
West; and the location of the building platforms over high class soils.
Mr Miller
commented that he felt that it was unfair that a portion of his property had
been identified for road widening and that he felt the applicant could more
easily supply any land required for the proposed road widening and that this
should be considered as part of this application.
Mr Miller sought
clarification as to how the ROW used by 70 Riccarton Road had come to be
established and what rights this conveyed. Mr Miller queried the
lawfulness of the use of the driveway by the nursery and maintained that the
use of the driveway for residential access could conflict with the existing
nursery use and result in further safety issues. The Committee advised Mr
Miller that they would investigate the lawfulness of the use of the driveway by
the nursery prior to making their decision.
Mr Miller
commented that he believed that it was not an efficient use of the land to
establish building platforms over high class soils.
Mr Bowen tabled a
copy of the deed which showed the ROW had been lawfully established in 1899.
It was moved
(Noone/Vandervis):
That the
meeting be adjourned until 10.45 am.
Motion carried
The meeting was
adjourned at 10.24 am and reconvened at 10.45 am.
The
Planner’s Review of his Recommendation
Mr Roberts
reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing,
maintaining his recommendation to grant consent.
Mr Roberts
reminded the Committee that they might only consider the effects on the
environment which would arise from the granting subdivision. Mr Roberts
outlined what could occur on the site as of right and commented that the right
to establish two residential units on the site had already been confirmed.
He advised that little weight could be given to the proposed district plan at
this time. Mr Roberts commented that it was his opinion that the granting
of the subdivision would not create an undesirable precedent and he reiterated
his opinion that consent to subdivide the site should be granted.
Applicant's
Right of Reply
Mr Bowen
reiterated the positive aspects of the application and asked for consent to be
granted.
It was moved
(Noone/Whiley)
That the
meeting be adjourned.
Motion carried
The meeting
adjourned at 11.00 am and reconvened on Wednesday 31 August 2016 at 12.00 pm.
It was moved (Whiley/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 – 10 Riccarton Road West, 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 12.10
pm.
MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A
MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL
CHAMBERS, ON 31 AUGUST 2016, COMMENCING AT 12.10 PM
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew
Whiley
IN ATTENDANCE: Kirstyn
Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor) and Wendy Collard
(Governance Support Officer)
PART C:
1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION SUB 2016-34, 10 RICCARTON ROAD WEST,
MOSGIEL
The Committee gave consideration
to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant
and submitters.
A site visit was undertaken during the non-public section of the
meeting.
Decision
It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):
"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 a two lot subdivision
at 10 Riccarton Road, East Taieri, legally described as Lot 1 DP 10269 (Computer Freehold Register FR OTB1/697) and Part
Section 5-6 Block III East Taieri Survey District (Computer Freehold Register
OTB1/698 Ltd), subject to conditions imposed
under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below:
Conditions
1. That the proposal should be undertaken in
general accordance with the application and in particular the scheme plan
prepared by Paterson Pitts Partners Limited (attached as Appendix 1) and the
relevant details and information submitted with resource consent application,
SUB-2016-34 received by Council on 10 May 2016; except where modified by the
following conditions:
2. Prior to certification of the cadastral dataset
pursuant to section 223 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the subdivider
should ensure the following:
a) If
a requirement for any easements for services, including private drainage, is
incurred during the survey then those easements should be granted or reserved
and included in a Memorandum of Easements on the cadastral dataset.
b)
The Proposed ROW Easements “A” and
“C” over Lot 2 in favour of Lot 1 as shown on the scheme plan
should be duly reserved and granted and shown in a Memorandum of Easements on
the cadastral dataset.
c)
The internal boundary between new lots 1 and 2 should
be configured such that the Otago Regional Council Scheduled Drain is wholly
contained within one Lot and shown on the cadastral dataset.
3. Prior to certification pursuant to section
224(c) of the Resource Management Act, the subdivider should complete the
following:
a) That the access
over the Rights of Way A and C should be duly formed with a suitable
all-weather surface, to a minimum width of 5.0m, for their entire length,
except that the access should be hard surfaced from the edge of Riccarton Road
West to a distance at least 5.0m inside the property boundary. The entire
length of the rights of way should be adequately drained.
b) That a plan
should be prepared for Lots 1 and 2 showing the positions of the building platforms
as approved by LUC-2015-577 and shown on the application plan for SUB-2016-34.
The platforms should be clearly dimensioned and the distances to the two
closest boundaries shown. The plan should be attached to the consent
notice of conditions 3(d) and 3(e) below.
c) That a consent
notice should be prepared for registration on the CFRS of new Lots 1 and 2 for
the following on-going conditions:
i) The minimum formed width of vehicular access to the dwelling should
not be less than four metres wide and had a vertical clearance of no less than
four metres high to ensure New Zealand Fire Service appliances had sufficient
vehicular access to the property.
ii) The
proposed dwelling must be provided with an adequate firefighting water supply
in accordance with SNZ PAS 4509:2008 in order to reduce the fire risk.
iii) Underground
tanks or tanks that were partially buried (provided the top of the tank is no
more than 1 metre above ground) might be accessed for firefighting purposes by
an opening in the top of the tank whereby couplings are not required. A
hardstand area adjacent to the tank was required in order to allow a fire
service appliance to park on it and access to the hardstand area must be
provided as above.
iv) Any
vehicle access or hardstand located on the site should not divert overland
stormwater flows onto adjacent properties.
d) That a consent
notice should be prepared for registration on the CFR of new Lot 1 for the
following on-going condition:
i) Residential development, including any
residential accessory buildings, should be fully contained within the building
platform shown on the plan attached to this notice. The building platform
identified the most elevated area and suitable building location within the
Lot. Farm buildings could be built in any location provided all bulk and
location planning provisions applying at the time were met.
ii) That a dwelling built on the building platform
should have a minimum floor level of 14.2m amsl.
e) That a consent
notice should be prepared for registration on the CFR of new Lot 2 for the
following on-going condition:
i) Residential development, including any
residential accessory buildings, should be fully contained within the building
platform shown on the plan attached to this notice. The building platform
identifies the most elevated area and suitable building location within the
Lot. Farm buildings could be built in any location provided all bulk and
location planning provisions applying at the time were met.
ii) That a dwelling built on the eastern building
platform should have a minimum floor level of 15.5m amsl."
Motion carried
Reasons for
the Decision
1 The Committee
considered that the proposed activity was consistent with the relevant
objectives and policies of the District Plan but contrary
to the objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan and failed one of
the gateway tests in section 104D of Act.
2 The Committee
believed that the proposal would not give rise to more than minor adverse
environmental effects and therefore satisfied the other gateway test contained
in Section 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991. As such, the
Committee were, therefore, able to consider the granting of consent to the
proposal.
3 The Committee found that the subdivision was consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for
Otago and proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago.
4 The Committee
considered that it was appropriate to apply the permitted baseline in this
instance. In making its assessment, the Committee acknowledged that the
right to establish two residential units on the site had already been confirmed
by LUC-2016-577. Furthermore, the site already comprised two computer
freehold registers and as such they felt its consideration
of environmental effects was limited to those which arose from the
rearrangement of cadastral boundaries of the two subject computer freehold registers.
5 In addition, the Committee noted that in
applying the baseline, the issue of high class soils raised by Mr Bradfield, Ms
Brookes and Mr Miller in their submissions, including the issue raised at the
hearing by the submitter Mr Miller that the proposal was contrary to policy
5.5.2 of the regional policy statement, was unable to be considered as the
location of the building platforms on the high class soils had been established
by LUC-2015-577. The Committee noted that the vast majority of the site
would continue to be used for a predominantly pastoral use.
6 The Committee
noted that LUC-2015-577 authorised a “second
residential dwelling on the property of 10 Riccarton Road West, Mosgiel, being
held in CFRs OTB1/698 and OTB1/697”. It
was the Committee’s opinion that once the subdivision was given effect to
the property at 10 Riccarton Road West, Mosgiel held in CFRs OTB1/698 and
OTB1/697 would no longer exist and it would not be possible to establish a
second residential unit as authorised by LUC-2015-577. The Committee noted that
if the consent holder gave effect
to the subdivision but did not establish residential activity on both lots 1
and 2 before the proposed district plan was made operative, then residential
activity on the new lots would be subject to the new district plan. The
Committee strongly recommended that if there would be any delay in building the new lots,
the consent holder apply for a certificate of compliance to secure their right
to build under the operative district plan.
7 With regard to
the submission from Otago Regional Council regarding natural hazards, the
Committee found comfort with the location of the building platforms and minimum
floor levels required by LUC-2015-577 and considered that these provided for
suitable locations to establish residential activity on the site. However
as discussed above, the Committee were mindful that once the subdivision had
been given effect to, LUC-2015-577 would no longer be required to establish
residential activity on the site as residential activity at the density was a
permitted activity under the operative district plan. In order to ensure
that residential activities were contained within the building platforms and
that minimum floor levels were met, even if LUC-2015-577 was not given effect
to, the building platforms and minimum floor levels identified in LUC-2015-577
should be included as a consent notices to be registered on the titles of both
new lots.
8 With respect to
the ORC scheduled drain, the Committee noted that the applicant offered to
configure the internal boundary of the subdivision so that the drain was
contained entirely within one lot. The Committee considered that this
would enable more coherent management of the drain and require this to be a
condition of consent.
9 In respect to
the firefighting provisions requested by the New Zealand Fire Service in their
submission, the Committee acknowledged the acceptance of the conditions
recommended by the Consultant Planner in his recommending report. Having
reviewed these conditions the Committee believed that these conditions were
appropriate and should be imposed on the consent.
10 With regard to access to the site, the Committee noted the
permitted baseline and that the two residential units might currently access
the site over the shared ROW. Upon request of Mr Miller, the Committee
sought information regarding the legality of the use of the ROW by the
activities occurring on 70 Riccarton Road. The Committee were satisfied that
the use of the ROW for the wholesale nursery activities at 70 Riccarton Road
was lawful and that the consent in 2007 sought to separate the retail activity
traffic from the wholesale activity traffic. All subsequent consents for
70 Riccarton Road and 58 Ayr Street provided for access to the sites from Bush
Road. The Committee recognised that Mr Miller noted this in his evidence
stating that the “2007 resource consent
provided for all new nursery activities to access the site from an
access on Bush Road.” (My emphasis).
11 The
Committee recognise that the access into the ROW is narrow and would benefit
from being widened. However, they considered that requiring the access to
be widened as part of the subdivision would be unreasonable, especially when
applying the permitted baseline. It noted that only Lot 2 would gain
access over this ROW and, as such, any traffic effect arising from the use of
the access by one lot would be less than minor. Trimming the vegetation
which flanked the access-way might improve the visibility and enhance ease of
movement. The Committee had recommended these improvements as an advice
note.
12 The Committee further noted
that, while the proposed district plan could be afforded little weight at this
time, the proposal was a non-complying activity under the proposed plan and the
rural subdivision rules did have legal effect. The Committee considered
that the property was already held in two titles and two residential units were
authorised for the site, and that this set the site apart from other
properties. As such, the Committee considered that the granting of
consent would not threaten the integrity of the District Plan or establish an
undesirable precedent for future applications.
13 Overall 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 12.40 pm.
……………………………
C H A I R P E R S O N
Hearings Committee
- 31 August 2016
gg
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Confirms the
minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 31 August 2016 as a correct record
(40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers).
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
A
|
Minutes
of Hearings Committee held on 31 August 2016
|
53
|
Hearings Committee
MINUTES
Minutes of
an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room,
Municipal Chambers, , The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 31 August 2016,
commencing at 9.00 am
PRESENT
|
Chairperson
|
Cr
Andrew Noone
|
|
|
|
Cr Lee
Vandervis
|
Cr
Andrew Whiley
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Kirstyn
Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Jeremy Grey (Planner), John
Eteuati (Asset Planning Engineer, Water and Waste Services) and Lee Paterson
(Geotechnical Engineer, MWH)
|
Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard
1 RESOURCE CONSENT
APPLICATION LUC 2016-189, 40 BEACH STREET,
PORT CHALMERS
The Committee considered an
application to undertake earthworks at 40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers.
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:
· Len Andersen (Legal Counsel)
· Rene Bakx (General Manager, Infrastructure capacity, Port Otago Ltd)
· Geoff Plunket (Chief Executive, Port Otago)
There were two
submitters present at the hearing.
· Don Anderson
· Naomi Wilson
Procedural
Issues
The Committee
Advisor (Kirstyn Lindsay) advised that Mr Owens has withdrawn his submission on
29 August 2016. The Committee advised that they accepted the withdrawal
and that no consideration would be given to it.
Councillor Noone
advised that he was a member of the Chalmers Community Board and that had
withdrawn from the meeting during the presentation from Port Otago Limited.
Presentation
of the Planner’s Report
The Planning Officer (Jeremy Grey)
spoke to a summary of his report and provided an overview of the proposal
before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions
received.
Mr Grey advised
that Resource Consent was sought to undertake
earthworks which exceeded the scale thresholds and the permitted proximity of
the works to Council-owned infrastructure of the Operative Dunedin City
District Plan (the Operative Plan). He commented that the subject site
comprised of 1.0878 ha and that the legal road reserve within the area was
misaligned with actual road formation and as such, some of the earthworks
necessary for the stability management would also occur within road
reserve. Mr Grey advised that up to 45,000 m3 of material would
be removed, benched terraces would be formed and that the proposed method of
works predominantly involved ripping but might require some blasting.
Mr Grey commented
that the Proposed Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) was notified on 26 September
2015 but at this time none of the proposed rules were relevant to the proposed
activity. He advised that overall, that the proposal was assessed as a
restricted discretionary activity.
Mr Grey advised
that in his assessment he had considered that the actual and potential effects
associated with the proposed activity would likely be no more than minor.
However, his position was contingent on strict adherence to recommended
conditions of consent. Mr Grey sought further clarification regarding two
matters; the first relating to the Council-owned site at 2 Island Terrace and
whether the works would encroach onto the land and the second how the works
would account for the Council-owned sewer pipe located within the subject
site. Subject to these issues being addressed satisfactorily, Mr Grey
recommended to the Committee that the consent be granted.
In response to
questions regarding the reuse of the spoil, Mr Grey confirmed that it was
likely that any reuse would require new consents under the Operative District
Plan.
The Applicant’s Presentation
Len Andersen (Legal Counsel) tabled and spoke to his legal submissions. Mr
Andersen advised that the purpose of the works was to
ensure that the applicant’s operation and public safety was safeguarded
from future instability. He commented that currently Beach Street was
obstructed by shipping containers put in place to protect road users from
further slippage on the site; however the containers reduced the width of the
road and redirected traffic onto the railway line.
Mr Andersen
commented that the draft conditions as proposed were acceptable to the
applicant. He advised that the works would be carried out in accordance
with an approved construction management plan, erosion and sediment control
plan, stormwater management plan and a traffic management plan. He
accepted the conditions which related to noise and blasting. In response
to questions, Mr Andersen noted that draft condition 14 which required notice
to be given to neighbours of blasting could be further refined to restrict when
blasting could occur and advise neighbours of those specific times.
Mr Andersen
advised that the landscape management plan had been prepared by Landscape
Architect Mike Moore and it was the intention of the applicant to plant the existing
benches at the top of the slope that were to be extended by the earthworks and
that these were planted in appropriate indigenous species. The slopes
below the benches would also be planted in native species and hydro-seeded and
left to revegetate naturally.
Mr Andersen
commented on the submissions on the application noting Ms Wilson’s
concerns regarding the future stability of the slope. He advised that
proposed conditions of consent requires the works to be overseen by a suitably
qualified engineer to ensure the works were stable and did not create areas of
instability on the site or adjacent land. Further to Ms
Wilson’s submission, he noted in respect to her concerns regarding
replacement planting, that the landscape plan submitted with the application
detailed the planting and its maintenance proposed for the site.
Mr Andersen
advised that with regard to Mr Don Anderson’s submission regarding the
reuse of the spoil material, the applicant was supportive of the reuse of the
material for the cycleway should this option be available.
Rene Bakx (General Manager, Infrastructure capacity,
Port Otago Ltd) provided a background to the history of
the subject site; which included a slope failure in 1999 and remediation works
undertaken to correct this. He reaffirmed the need for the works to
stabilise Flagstaff Hill. Mr Bakx commented that he considered the
proposed works would provide a long-term engineering solution to the current
instability of the hillside. He advised that Port Otago Ltd had engaged
reputable engineers to assess the site and was confident in the solutions that
had been proposed. Mr Bakx acknowledged Mr Don Anderson’s
submission regarding the use of the material for the proposed cycleway and
commented that Port Otago had been in discussions with the New Zealand
Transport Agency with regard to the timing and prospects of the reuse of the
material.
In response to
questions, Mr Bakx advised that Beach Street would be closed for periods of
time but that this would be managed through the traffic management plan which
included options to ensure that alternative public access remained available to
the boat harbour.
Mr Bakx commented
on the Council-owned infrastructure and the property at 2 Island Terrace and
clarified that the property at 2 Island Terrace was only affected by a minor
degree at the northwest corner of the property. He noted that the
stability of the land would not be impacted. Mr Bakx advised that the
land was owned by Dunedin City Council and leased by the applicant and the any
works located on the land would be subject to lease negotiations. If the
Dunedin City Council (as landowner) was not amenable to these works, these
could be redesigned to avoid the property which would not be fatal to the
application. Mr Bakx noted that there was a swale drain proposed to
intercept stormwater and divert it away from the slope face across 2 Island
Terrace. While this was the preferred location for the swale, the applicant had
engineering advice that it could be relocated outside of the property boundary
if necessary but that this would require further modifications to the slope
design.
With regard to
the impacts of Council owned water and waste infrastructure, Mr Bakx advised
that he expected that the sewer pipe which traversed the property would be
affected by the excavation and would need to be demolished as a result of the
works. He also expected the man hole located in the Island terrace road reserve
to be affected. Mr Bakx advised that Water and Waste services had
confirmed that the sewer pipe could be decommissioned or vested as private
sewer. It was the applicant’s preference that the pipe be removed
and capped at the man hole.
Mr Bakx advised
that the works were expected to take between 3 and 12 months but this depended
on the contractor engaged to run the project, the conditions of consent and
weather conditions. He noted that the contractor would be responsible for
providing the various site management plans and for adhering to any conditions
of consent. In response to questions, Mr Bakx confirmed that it was in
the applicant’s best interest to complete the works as quickly as
possible. The use of blasting to expedite the works would not be
confirmed until a contractor had be confirmed but it was a possibility that
blasting would occur. Mr Bakx responded to concerns regarding access to
the boat harbour along Beach Street and commented that a condition of consent
required a traffic management plan which would address public access along
Beach Street.
a)
It was moved
(Noone/Vandervis)
"That the
meeting be adjourned until 10.55 am."
Motion carried
The meeting
adjourned at 10.40 am and reconvened at 10.53 am.
Council
Officers Evidence
Lee Paterson (Geotechnical Engineer, MWH) responded to
questions regarding the engineering design of the
works. Mr Paterson advised that he considered that the design work had
been undertaken by a reputable engineering company and conditions of consent
accepted by the applicant would require the works to be overseen by a suitably
qualified person. He believed that the works would improve the Factor of
Safety. With regard to the potential blasting, Mr Paterson commented that
he believed that there was the capacity on the site to utilise large machinery
which would reduce the need for blasting. When asked about the quality of
the spoil material, Mr Paterson confirmed that it was good quality material and
could be put to a number of uses, including the cycleway.
Mr John
Eteuati (Asset Planning
Engineer, Water and Waste Services) responded to
regarding Council's foul sewer which traverses the area of works and commented
noted that the foul sewer was a virgin pipe and could be decommissioned if
required. With regard to the man hole in Island Terrace, Mr Eteuati
advised that if this was to be damaged then the applicant would need to
relocate this. He commented that in regard to the stormwater and foul
sewer pipes in Island Terrace, Water and Waste Services would require these to
be filmed prior to the works commencing to establish the condition of the
pipes. Water and Waste Services would also require the water pipes in
Island Terrace to be pressure tested before the works and inspected to for any
leaks after the works to ensure the integrity of these was maintained.
Submitters
Naomi Wilson spoke to her submission which raised concerns about the ongoing
stability of the site, landscape planting, potential damage to her property and
prolonged noise effects. Ms Wilson commented that, in her opinion, the
stability works were only required due to the poor management of the site by
the applicant. She advised that her house had historic value and given
its connection with artist, Ralph Hotere, she considered it to be taonga.
Ms Wilson advised that she was concerned that the vibration and blasting would
adversely affect the house. She highlighted the poor management of the
landscape treatment to that portion of the hill that was remediated after the
previous slip. She sought reassurance from the Committee that any consent
conditions would be carefully monitored and that non-compliance would result in
enforcement action.
Don Anderson spoke to his submission and he advised that he was concerned that
an opportunity to reuse the spoil from the proposed earthworks was being missed
by not diverting the spoil to the proposed cycleway. Mr Anderson showed
the Committee a range of photos and gave commentary regarding his preferred
route for Sawyers Bay-Port Chalmers leg of the proposed cycleway.
The
Planner’s Review of his Recommendation
Mr Grey reviewed
his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing,
maintaining his recommendation to grant consent. He commented that a key aspects of the application related to the timing of the
works and the timeframes within which the works would be undertaken. He
advised that he believed that it was important that the surrounding community
remain informed and involved and regular updates should be made to affected
parties. Mr Grey considered that the timing of any blasting should be
controlled and specific notice of blasting be given to affected parties.
Mr Grey noted the concerns raised by Ms Wilson regarding the landscape
treatment and determined that the weed control outlined in the landscape plan
should also become a specific condition of consent. Mr Grey accepted that
the effects of the works on council infrastructure could be managed and that
the potential effects on the property at 2 Island Terrace would be best managed
through the existing lease.
Applicant's
Right of Reply
Mr Andersen
commented that the timing was dependant on a number of factors and as such it
was hard to lock it down definitively. In relation to any potential
damage caused to neighbouring properties, Mr Andersen cautioned the Committee
to ensure that they did not impose conditions to address issues where
reasonable civil remedies were available. He advised that the blasting
condition could be tightened to impose more specific timeframes and notice
service requirements. Overall, Mr Andersen sought that the consent be
granted with conditions.
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 were 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 – 40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers, 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 12.26
pm.
b)
MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A
MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL
CHAMBERS, ON 31 AUGUST 2016, COMMENCING AT 12.40 PM
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew
Whiley
IN ATTENDANCE: Kirstyn
Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor) and Wendy Collard
(Governance Support Officer)
PART C:
1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION
– LUC-2016-189, 40 BEACH STREET,
PORT CHALMERS
The Committee gave consideration
to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant.
A site visit was undertaken during the non-public section of the hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 12.50 pm
and reconvened on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 at 9.15 pm.
Decision
It was moved (Vandervis/Whiley):
"Pursuant to sections 34A(1) and 104C and after having regard to Part
2 matters and section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City
Council granted consent to a restricted discretionary activity being to
undertake earthworks that would breach the maximum change in ground level and
volume of excavation thresholds and boundary and water and waste infrastructure
proximity provisions at 40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers, legally described as Lot 1 DP 26574 (CFR-OT18D/5), Sec 466 and 467 SO 21294 Town
of Port Chalmers (CFRs OT10C/180 and OT10C/181), along with portions of Aurora
and Island Terrace road reserve, subject to conditions imposed under
section 108 of the Act as shown below:
Conditions
1 The proposed activity must be
undertaken in general accordance with the site plan, elevations and relevant
information, including the Project Specification contained in the report by the
report by Opus International Consultants Limited, entitled “Flagstaff
Hill Proposed Cut Design North East Slope” dated 1 January 2010, provided
with resource consent application LUC-2016-189, received by the Council on 4
May 2016.
Notification
2 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. The notice must
be provided at least five (5) working days before the works were to commence.
c)
3 The consent holder must
provide written notice to the neighbouring properties of the start date of the
works. The notice must be provided at least five (5) working days before
the works were to commence.
4 The consent holder must send
by email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz a progress update at the end of each two
month period following commencement of the works. The update must detail the
extent of the work already undertaken and give a projection on the earthworks
will be complete. The same details must be provided in writing to
neighbouring properties, within the same time period.
5 The Consent holder must serve
48-hours’ notice of any blasting to the neighbours and the Council.
The notice must give the time that blasting is to occur and the duration of the
blasting. No blasting must occur if notice has not been
served. Notice to the neighbours must be in a written form and to
Council via email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz.
Engineering and Construction
6 The consent holder must:
a) be responsible for all contracted
operations relating to the exercise of the consent; and
b) ensure that all personnel
(contractors) working on the site were made aware of the conditions of the
consent, had access to the contents of consent documents and to al associated
erosion and sediment control plans and methodology; and
c) ensure compliance with land use
consent conditions.
7 The consent holder must
complete all earthworks within 18 months from when they commenced.
8 The proposed earthworks must
be designed, specified and have its construction supervised by a suitably
qualified person.
9 The consent holder must
prepare a Construction Management Plan, which detailed the construction
methodology. Construction Management Plan must include a Construction
Programme which must confirm construction timing and details of storage and
disposal of excavated material. A copy of the Construction Management
Plan must be provided to Resource Consent Monitoring team by email to rcmonitoring@dcc.govt.nz, one month prior to works commencing.
10 A suitably qualified person must be
engaged to determine any temporary shoring requirements at the site during
earthworks construction and the consent holder must install any temporary
shoring recommended.
11 Following completion of the works,
certification by a suitably qualified engineer that the worked areas were
suitably stable and that additional instability has not been created that could
affect the subject site or any adjacent land. The certification must be
submitted to Resource Consents Manager within one month of the works being
completed.
Sediment and Erosion Control
12 The earthworks must be undertaken with
the principles of industry best practice applied at all stages of site
development including site stability, stormwater management, traffic
management, along with dust and noise controls at the sites.
13 At least one month prior to the works
commencing, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan
to manage storm water run-off, sedimentation and erosion effects before, during
and upon completion of the earthworks, must be submitted to the Resource
Consents Manager for approval. These plans might be incorporated into the
Construction Management Plan required by Condition 9 above.
14 All measures (including dampening of
loose soil where possible) must be maintained to ensure that dust, resulting
from the earthworks, does not cause a nuisance.
15 All on-site stockpiling must be
undertaken in a manner to ensure that visual impact and sediment generation
effects were minimised.
Noise and
Vibration
16 Works must not occur outside of the hours
of 7.30am - 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday. Works must not occur on public
holidays.
17 All construction noise must 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
|
70
|
85
|
|
Saturdays
|
0730-1800
|
70
|
85
|
18 All blasting must occur at least 100m
away from any residential dwelling and must be undertaken in accordance with
German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999-02. Blasting must only occur between the
hours of 9am and 4pm, Monday to Friday with blasting only authorised in one
hour blocks for no more than two hours on any given day.
Traffic Management
19 The consent holder must prepare a Traffic
Management Plan (TMP), which must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Transport department, prior to works commencing. The TMP must include,
but not be limited to, the following:
a) Confirmation that TMP must comply
with the requirements of the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic
Management.
b) All rock/earthworks material taken
away from the site by truck must be taken away via Beach St direct to George
Street/State Highway 88.
c) Road closures are at the
discretion of the DCC Traffic Management Coordinator, and may require further
public notification.
d) Details of any catch fences that
may be required to ensure the operational safety of the transport
e) Confirm that any excavation work
proposed within legal road must be undertaken in accordance with the National
Code of Practice for Utility Operators' Access to Transport Corridors, and will
require an authorised corridor access request prior to these works commencing.
f) Provide details of the full extent
of proposed works, especially those within legal road.
Network
Maintenance
20 The foul sewer pipe which traversed Lot 1
DP 26574 might be decommissioned if required. All decommissioning works
were the sole responsibility of the consent holder. Notice of the
decommissioning works must be given to Water and Waste Services at least 14
days prior to these works commencing.
21 Should Water and Waste Services determine
that the final design and methodology of the works threaten the integrity of
the man hole located at the eastern termination of Island Terrace, then the man
hole must be relocated at the cost of the consent holder. Relocation of the man
hole must be undertaken in consultation with Water and Waste Services
22 Prior to the works commencing, the
consent holder must arrange for Water and Waste Services (or their agent) to
film the stormwater and foul sewer pipes and pressure test the water pipe in
Island Terrace. Water and Waste Services require at least 14-days’
notice to arrange the testing.
23 At the completion of the works, the
consent holder must arrange for Water and Waste Services (or their agent) to
film the stormwater and foul sewer pipes and test the water pipe for leakage in
Island Terrace. Any damage (and subsequent repairs) to the infrastructure
network caused by the works authorised by this consent must be the
responsibility of the consent holder.
Landscape
Plan
24 A Landscape Development and Management
Plan must be submitted to Council for approval of the Resource Consents
Manager. The plan must be submitted at least one month before the works
commence. The Landscape Development and Management Plan must manage the entire
area of land contained within Lot 1 DP 26574 (CFR OT18D/5). At a minimum
the plan must include species to be planted, spacing of planting, care and
maintenance programme and weed control.
25 All post-care landscaping works must be
completed within 12 months from when the earthworks were completed.
26 For five years following the completion
of the landscaping works, all plants which become moribund must be replaced.
27 Active weed management and control must
be undertaken for Lot 1 DP 26574 (CFR OT18D/5).
Cultural
Values
28 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 must without delay:
(i) notify the Consent Authority, Tangata whenua
and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga 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 must 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 must be handled and removed by tribal
elders responsible for the tikanga (custom) appropriate to its removal or
preservation.
Site work must recommence following consultation with the Consent
Authority, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, Tangata whenua, and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand
Police, provided that any relevant statutory permissions have 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
must without delay:
(i) stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery or
disturbance; and
(ii) advise the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga,
and in the case of Maori features or materials, the Tangata whenua, and if
required, must make an application for an Archaeological Authority pursuant to
the Historic Places Act 1993; and
(iii) arrange for a suitably qualified
archaeologist to undertake a survey of the site.
Site work must recommence following consultation with the Consent
Authority."
Motion carried
Reasons for
the Decision
1 The
Committee determined that the works as applied were a restricted discretionary
activity. The Committee noted that in making its decision, its discretion
was restricted to the following relevant maters:
Adverse
effects on the amenity of neighbouring properties
2 The
Committee recognised that the works would occur over a prolonged period of time
(up to 12 months) and that for the duration of the works there was the
potential for adverse effects such as noise, dust and vibration. The
Committee looked to the Marshal Day acoustic report submitted with the
application. While the Committee found the report light and lacked
specific positions of claimed noise levels and did not quantify sub-sonic or
vibration effects, Marshal Day did confirm that where works were taking place
within the line of sight of neighbouring properties, noise levels were
anticipated to be 65 dB LAEQ. These levels fall with the
long-term construction noise standards for the hours between 7.30am to 6.00pm
as set out in NZS 6803:1999. The noise of the operation would preclude
works occurring outside of these times. The Committee believed that was
appropriate for those noise standards to be adopted.
3 Turning
their mind to timing of the works, the Committee were mindful that it was a
balancing act where any restriction on the time periods placed on the works had
the potential to extend the duration of the works overall. That said, the
Committee considered that the neighbouring properties should have some respite
from the effects of the construction and, as such, have determined that works
should not occur on Sundays and Public Holidays.
4. In
terms of vibration effects, the Committee recognised that the Marshal Day
report stated that vibration effects would be noticeable but of short term and
limited in duration. The Marshall Day report suggested that any blasting should
maintain a separation distance of at least 100m from any dwelling to ensure the
5mm/s as promoted in the accepted German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999-02. The
Committee considered that the standard should be complied with during any
blasting. To further reduce any effects on neighbours, the Committee
restricted the hours of blasting to between 9am and 4pm, Monday to Friday with
blasting occurring in one hour blocks for no more than two hours on any given
day.
5. The Committee also considered that it
appropriate that notice of the blasting should all be served on the neighbours
a minimum of 48 hours before blasting occurs. The notice should give the
time that blasting was to occur and the duration of the blasting. No
blasting should occur if notice had not been served.
6. Turning its mind to the potential dust
effects, the Committee accepted the draft condition 12 of the S42A report and
would require dust suppressant measures to be employed.
7. The Committee noted that there was the
potential for the works to extend into 2 Island Terrace and also occur within
the Aurora Terrace and Island Terrace Road Reserve. The Committee
reminded the applicant that these works might only occur at the pleasure of the
Dunedin City Council. The applicant was advised to get permission from
the Council’s Property and Transport department who administered these
pieces of land.
8. The Committee considered that it was
important that the works were undertaken in a timely manner. That was,
once the works commence there should not be any unnecessary delays in their
completion. The Committee noted that the applicant had stated that the
works would be completed within 3-12 months. To provide certainty for the
neighbours, the earthworks should be completed within 12 months from when they
commenced and post-care landscaping works should be completed within 12 months
of when the earthworks were completed.
9. The Committee considered overall, that it
was important for the applicant to actively engage and inform the neighbouring
community regarding these works. To that end, five days prior to the
start of works, the applicant should provide written notice to the neighbours
and Council advising them of the impending commencement of the works. The
applicant should also provide two-monthly updates detailing the progress of the
works to neighbouring properties and the Council. The progress reports
should detail the extent of the work undertaken and provide a projection of the
works still be completed and estimated timeframes for these.
Effects on Visual Amenity and Landscape
10. With respect to the effects on visual amenity and
landscape, the Committee recognised that the site would have an adverse visual
impact while the earthworks were being undertaken and that this effect would be
present for the duration of the works and until planting became established.
The Committee acknowledged mitigation proposed by the landscape development and
management plan prepared by Mike Moore and submitted with the application.
11. The Committee noted that previous benching work had
occurred within Lot 1 DP 26574. The Committee considered that it was
important that the lot be managed as a contiguous unit and believed that the
landscaping management should occur across the entire site. As such, the
landscape and development plan should be amended to extend the landscaping over
the northern and north-western portion of Lot 1 DP 26574. The landscape
and development plan with incorporated changes should be resubmitted as part of
the construction management plan for approval by the Resource Consents Manager.
12. The Committee noted Ms Wilson’s concerns
regarding the ongoing maintenance of the landscaping and sought to address this
by imposing specific conditions requiring active weed control to be undertaken
and moribund plantings to be replaced.
Effects on any Archaeological Site and any Cultural Site
13. The Committee accepted the recommendation in the
s42A report that an accidental discovery protocol be imposed on the consent.
Effects on the Transportation Network
14. The Committee were mindful that management of the
road, including any temporary closures were managed through the Local
Government Act and a separate process under this legislation would manage those
effects. A condition of consent required the applicant to submit a
Traffic Management Plan for approval by the Council’s Transport
department.
15. The Committee recognised that without a defined end
point for the spoil it was difficult to assess the effects on the traffic
network. The Committee recognised that if the spoil was transported by
truck back to Dunedin, once off Beach Street, transportation would occur on the
State Highway network which was designed for heavy traffic movements. The
applicant was encouraged to consider the suitably of alternative transport
options such as rail or barge to transport the spoil from the site.
16. Post-works, the Committee encouraged the applicant
to revisit the current legal road corridor within Beach Street and apply for
appropriate amendments to the location of the legal road to ensure that legal
public access was secured.
Effects from the Release of Sediment
17. The Committee accepted that the nature of the works
was such that sediment and erosion effects would need to be managed. It
supported the recommendation in the s42A report that a Stormwater Management
Plan and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan were necessary to contain effects
within the subject site. It noted that these plans would need to be
approved prior to any works commencing on the site.
Design and Engineering Effects
18. The Committee recognised that the works had been
designed by a reputable engineering company and that this design work had been
subsequently peer reviewed by the Council’s Consultant Engineer.
The Committee were satisfied that the works were viable and could be undertaken
as applied for. It noted that the details of the works including
methodology and timing were reliant on the contractor engaged. The
Committee accepted the recommendation of the s42A report that a construction
management plan be submitted for approval by Council prior to works
commencing.
19. The Committee noted that the contractor would be
responsible for ensuring all conditions of consent were complied with but
reminded the applicant that the ultimate responsibility for compliance lies
with it.
Effects on the Stability of Land and Buildings
20. The Committee referred to the direction given above
regarding the restrictions imposed on the blasting works to limit the extent of
vibration effects on neighbours. The Committee recognised that, as with
any works, there was the potential for damage to occur to neighbouring
properties. The applicant was encouraged to assess the pre and post work
state of neighbouring properties to ensure that no damage had occurred as a
result of actions undertaken on its site.
Effects on Underground Utilities
21. The Committee acknowledged that the foul sewer pipe
traversing the subject site was likely to be interfered with as a result of the
works. It noted that this was a virgin pipe and could be decommissioned
without impact on the provision of infrastructure services. It further
accepted that the man hole in Island Terrace might need to be relocated if its
integrity was threatened by the works. The relocation of the man hole
would be subject to approval of Water and Waste Services. The Committee
recognised the concerns raised by Water and Waste Services regarding the
integrity of the Council’s infrastructure network. It noted that
Water and Waste Services had requested a number of pre and post work testing of
the network to be undertaken. The Committee considered that these tests
were appropriate and imposed as conditions of consent.
Other Matters
22. The Committee appreciated the well-considered
submission of Mr Anderson but noted that the issues raised in his submission
fall outside of the scope of matters which could be considered through the
consent process. The Committee did however recognise the quality of
material to be removed and encouraged the applicant to actively investigate all
economic and environmentally sustainable reuse options for the spoil won from
site.
Determination
23. The Committee considered that the proposed activity
was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative
Dunedin City District Plan predominantly Objective 17.2.3 and Policy 17.3.9
(Earthworks Section) that sought to control the location and scale of
earthworks and to ensure that earthworks were undertaken in a manner that was
safe and in a manner that minimised adverse effects on the environment.
24. The Committee also considered that the proposed activity
was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the proposed
Dunedin City District Plan, significantly objective 30.2.3 and policies
30.2.3.1, 30.2.3.2 and 30.2.3.3.
Effects on Underground Utilities
25. The Committee acknowledged that the foul sewer pipe
traversing the subject site was likely to be interfered with as a result of the
works. It noted that this was a virgin pipe and could be decommissioned
without impact on the provision of infrastructure services. It further accepted
that the man hole in Island Terrace might need to be relocated if its integrity
was threatened by the works. The relocation of the man hole would be
subject to approval of Water and Waste Services. The Committee recognised
the concerns raised by Water and Waste Services regarding the integrity of the
Council’s infrastructure network. It noted that Water and Waste
Services had requested a number of pre and post work testing of the network to
be undertaken. The Committee considered that these tests were appropriate
and imposed as conditions of consent.
Other Matters
26. The Committee appreciated the well-considered
submission of Mr Anderson but noted that the issues raised in his submission
fall outside of the scope of matters which could be considered through the
consent process. The Committee did however recognise the quality of
material to be removed and encouraged the applicant to actively investigate all
economic and environmentally sustainable reuse options for the spoil won from
site.
Determination
27. The Committee considered that the proposed activity
was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative
Dunedin City District Plan predominantly Objective 17.2.3 and Policy 17.3.9
(Earthworks Section) that sought to control the location and scale of
earthworks and to ensure that earthworks were undertaken in a manner that was
safe and in a manner that minimised adverse effects on the environment.
28. The Committee also considered that the proposed
activity was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the
proposed Dunedin City District Plan, significantly objective 30.2.3 and
policies 30.2.3.1, 30.2.3.2 and 30.2.3.3.
The meeting ended at 10.35 am.
CHAIRPERSON
Development
Contributions Subcommittee - 2 September 2016
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
Confirms the public part of the minutes of the Development
Contributions Subcommittee held on 2 September 2016 as a correct record.
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
A
|
Minutes
of Development Contributions Subcommittee held on 2 September 2016
|
68
|
Development Contributions Subcommittee
MINUTES
Unconfirmed
Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Development Contributions Subcommittee
held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin on Friday
02 September 2016, commencing at 1.00 pm
PRESENT
|
Chairperson
|
Richard
Thomson
|
|
|
Members
|
Jinty
MacTavish
|
|
|
|
Chris
Staynes
|
Kate
Wilson
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Gavin Logie
(Acting Chief Group Financial Officer), Alan Worthington (Resource Consents
Manager) and Nic Jepson (Development Contributions Officer)
|
Governance Support Officer Jennifer Lapham
1 Public
Forum
There was no
Public Forum.
|
2 Apologies
Moved (Cr
Richard Thomson/Jinty MacTavish): that the Committee
Accepts the apology from Cr Benson-Pope.
Motion
carried
|
|
3 Confirmation
of agenda
|
|
|
Moved (Cr Jinty MacTavish/Cr Richard
Thomson): that the Committee
Confirms the agenda without addition or alteration
Motion carried (DCS/2016/001)
|
4 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 Staynes
declared an interest in the Emerson's Brewery request and advised he would
withdraw from this item.
|
Resolution
to exclude the public
|
|
Moved (Cr Richard Thomson/Cr Kate
Wilson): that the Committee
Pursuant to the provisions of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, exclude 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 Remission - 471 Princes Street
|
S7(2)(h)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities.
S7(2)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
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.
|
Matters
discussed in this report are between the applicant and the DCC, these are
to remain confidential.
|
|
C2 Development Contributions Remission - 471 Princes
Street
|
S7(2)(h)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities.
S7(2)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
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.
|
Matters
discussed in this report are between the applicant and the DCC, these are
to remain confidential.
|
|
C3 Development Contributions Remission - 20 Burwood Avenue
|
S7(2)(h)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities.
S7(2)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
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.
|
Matters
discussed in this report are between the applicant and the DCC, these are
to remain confidential.
|
|
C4 Development Contributions Remission - New Emerson's
Brewery
|
S7(2)(h)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial
activities.
S7(2)(i)
The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the
local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
|
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.
|
Matters
discussed in this report are between the applicant and the DCC, these are
to remain confidential.
|
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 (DCS/2016/002)
|
I also move that
Mr Bill Brown be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been
excluded, because of his knowledge of 471 Princes Street Remission
request. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the
matter to be discussed, is relevant to that matter because Mr Brown wishes to
speak to his application.
I also move that
Chris O'Leary (Brewery Manager) be permitted to remain at this meeting, after
the public has been excluded, because of his knowledge of remission request by
Emerson's. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the
matter to be discussed, is relevant to that matter because Mr Brown wishes to
speak to his application.
The
meeting went into non-public at 1.05 pm.
..............................................
C H A I R P E R S O N
Reports
Annual Reports of the
Subsidiaries and Associate Companies of Dunedin City Holdings Limited 2015/2016
Department: Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL) are
required to prepare and present an annual report to Council for noting.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Notes the
annual reports for the subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City
Holdings Limited for the year ended 30 June 2016.
|
DISCUSSION
2 The
annual reports of the subsidiaries and associate companies of Dunedin City
Holdings Ltd (DCHL) are now presented for formal noting by Council.
3 The
annual reports for Dunedin Venues Management Limited and Dunedin Venues Limited
are included in the attachments for this report to reflect current operating
practice, although it should be noted that until 1 July 2016, their actual
legal status was that of a subsidiary of Dunedin City Council.
4 These
annual reports are available on the Dunedin City Council website.
5 As
this report is for administrative and statutory reporting purposes a summary of
considerations and options is not required.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Gavin Logie - Acting Chief Financial
Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy
and Governance
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Aurora
Energy Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b
|
City
Forests Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
c
|
Delta
Utility Services Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
d
|
Dunedin
City Treasury Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
e
|
Dunedin
International Airport Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
f
|
Dunedin
Venues Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
g
|
Dunedin
Venues Management Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
h
|
Taieri
Gorge Railway Limited Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Dunedin City Council Annual
Report 2016
Department: Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This
report asks the Council to approve and adopt the Annual Report for the Dunedin
City Council in the financial year ended 30 June 2016.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Approves and adopts the Dunedin City Council Annual report and summary
report for the financial year ended 30 June 2016, subject to any minor
editing required between adoption and final publication.
b) Authorises the
Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the Statement of Responsibility on behalf
of Council.
c) Authorises the
Mayor and Chief Executive to sign the Letter of Representation on behalf of
Council.
|
BACKGROUND
2 Each year the Council must prepare an annual report in accordance with section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002. Each annual report must be completed and adopted by resolution
within four months after the end of the financial year to which it relates, and
within one month after the adoption, the local authority must make publicly
available:
· its annual report; and
· a
summary of the information contained in its annual report.
DISCUSSION
3 The
draft annual report is on the agenda for the the Audit and Risk Subcommittee
meeting on 29 September 2016.
4 Audit
requirements and the timing of meetings is such that the completed annual
report is not available in time to meet the agenda deadline for Council.
5 This
means the annual report will be circulated separately so that the
recommendations of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee and the final audit
requirements can be incorporated. This report is of an administrative nature
and is of low significance in terms of the Council's significance and
engagement policy. Therefore, it is not necessary to include a summary of
considerations or options in this report.
NEXT STEPS
6 The
annual report will be published and made available on the website of the
Dunedin City Council following Council's authorisation and adoption of the
report content.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Gavin Logie - Acting Chief Financial
Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy
and Governance
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Dunedin
City Council Annual Report 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Delegations in the
Interregnum Period
Department: Information Services
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
interregnum period is the period between the discharge of the Council and the
swearing in of the new Council. It is anticipated to occur between 15
October and 25 October 2016.
2 The
Council must provide for the effective and efficient conduct of the Council's
business during the interregnum.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Approves the
following appointments and powers:
i) That Andrew Noone, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley
(or Kate Wilson, Aaron Hawkins and David Benson-Pope to act as alternates
where one of the other delegate(s) is unavailable or not willing to act) be
appointed to act together as Commissioners to undertake the responsibilities
of the Hearings Committee from 8 October 2016 until that matter has proceeded
to a decision. This delegation will expire when all matters commenced
immediately prior to the date a Hearings Committee is appointed have
proceeded to a decision.
Explanatory
Note: the Hearings Committee appointed by Council in the new Triennium is to
consider any matters which require a hearing after the date that new
Committee is appointed, but any matters commenced after 8 October 2016
and prior to that appointment date will continue under this delegation until
a decision has issued.
ii) That from 8 October 2016 the Chief Executive Officer
in consultation with the Resource Consents Manager or City Development
Manager as appropriate, be authorised to appoint one or more independent
commissioner(s) for hearings where:
· The Council is the landowner, lessee, applicant, requiring
authority, has a financial interest, or the Council has any other role where
the perception of bias or impartiality in its quasi-judicial decision making
capacity cannot be avoided; or
· A Commissioner(s) appointed as provided for in the above
circumstances is unavailable or not willing to act; or
· A joint hearing is to be convened.
This
delegation expires on the appointment of a new Hearings Committee.
iii) That from 8 October 2016, Andrew Noone be delegated
the power to negotiate and/or resolve any appeal on a resource consent
decision. This delegation is to expire on the appointment of a new
Hearings Committee.
iv) That from 8 October 2016, until the date that a new
Hearings Committee is appointed Andrew Noone is authorised to:
· Determine any matters regarding minor alterations to designations
· Initiate or join any Environment Court proceedings under the
Resource Management Act 1991
· Negotiate and resolve or withdraw from any proceeding arising from
4(b) above
· Select the chairperson or mediator for pre-hearing meetings
pursuant to s99 and s99A of the Resource Management Act 1991.
v) That from 8 October 2016 until the inaugural meeting
of the Council the Chief Executive Officer is authorised to make decisions in
respect of urgent matters. Where the Mayor elect is known, this will be
in consultation with the Mayor elect.
vi) In the event of a pandemic or emergency occurring
the Chief Executive Officer (or Acting Chief Executive Officer) is delegated
all of the powers and functions of the local authority (other than those
which may not be delegated). This delegation expires on the convening
of a valid meeting of the Dunedin City Council.
|
BACKGROUND
3 Elected
members and standing committees (that have not been constituted to survive the
triennium) are discharged from office from the date that the Returning Officer
publicises the official results of the elections.
4 Elected
members cannot act in any capacity from the date they are discharged until they
have made their statutory declarations at the inaugural Council meeting which
is tentatively set down for 25 October 2016.
DISCUSSION
5 Unless
delegations are made to apply to matters commenced in the interregnum, it will
not be possible to deal with urgent matters or conduct the business ordinarily
delegated to the Hearings Committee or the Hearings Committee Chair.
6 It
is proposed that a series of delegations to Chief Executive Officer and to
specified people be put in place from polling day (8 October) and also during
the interregnum. In 2013 the Council delegated authority to the Chief Executive
Officer to act during the interregnum.
7 The
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group continues during the interregnum
(section 12 Clause (2) of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002),
therefore no delegations are required for the interregnum.
8 The
District Licensing Committee is a committee of Council that was appointed by
Council (by resolution dated 25 May 2015) to continue until the 25 May
2019. Therefore no delegations are required for this committee to
continue.
9 As
this report concerns administrative matters only, a summary of considerations
is not required.
OPTIONS Option One – Delegated authority for the interregnum -
Recommended Option
10 It
is proposed that the Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer
responsibilities, duties, and powers (except those that cannot be delegated) in
respect of urgent matters for the period in question subject to certain
conditions. This option is consistent with Council’s decision in previous
interregnum periods.
Advantages
· Delegating powers in the recommended manner will ensure that
decisions can be made under urgency and within the timeframes required by the
Resource Management Act 1991.
Disadvantages
· No disadvantages have been identified.
Option Two – No delegated authority during the
interregnum
11 If
no delegations are made, then the Chief Executive Officer will be required to
call an extraordinary Council meeting at 72 hours' notice if there are matters
that require urgent decisions during the interregnum.
12 The
Mayor-elect and Councillors-elect could be sworn in, and then Council could
consider the urgent business or resource consent application.
13 This
option is premised on a clear election result with no recounts being requested.
Advantages
· No advantages have been identified.
Disadvantages
· In terms of a resource consent application, it is necessary for the
chairperson of the decision making body to hold the appropriate accreditation
(section 39B Resource Management Act 1991). An accredited person may not
be available at short notice.
· In terms of urgent business, it may not be possible to convene an
extraordinary meeting with a quorum at short notice.
· The 72 hour requirement may result in a breach of statutory
timeframes under the Resource Management Act.
14 The
disadvantages of Option Two mean that Council cannot adequately provide for the
efficient and effective conduct of Council's affairs. Therefore Option
One is recommended.
NEXT STEPS
15 The
recommended options provide for the expiry of the interregnum
delegations. Nothing further is required.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Kristy Rusher - Manager Civic and Legal
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Sandy Graham - General Manager Strategy
and Governance
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Notice of Motion
Notice of Motion - Transfer of Public Transport
Functions
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 In
accordance with Standing Order 3.9.1, the following Notice of Motion has been
received from Crs Jinty MacTavish and David Benson-Pope for inclusion on the
agenda for the Council meeting being held on Monday, 3
October 2016:
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Notes
that the Otago Regional Council has offered to transfer public transport
functions to the Dunedin City Council.
b) Notes
that the Dunedin City Council has supported the transfer in principle
(subject to further investigation and a report back to Council for a final
decision prior to consultation).
c) Notes
that collaboration between the two councils on public transport planning is
important in this context.
d) Notes
the importance of a well-designed, strategically located bus hub for
Dunedin's economic, social and environmental wellbeing.
e) Notes
that, to support delivery of Dunedin's Integrated Transport Strategy, the
bus hub must facilitate easy transfers between different modes of transport,
both local and national.
f) Notes
the opportunities for excellent urban design outcomes potentially afforded by
collaboration around design and delivery of central city initiatives:
- the Central City Plan
- the Dunedin Hospital rebuild
- planned tertiary precinct
works, and
- the city's proposed bus hub
- implementation of parking
reviews
g) Reiterates
the request made in 2015/16 and 16/17 submissions to the Otago Regional
Council's budget planning processes, for close collaboration on the proposed
bus hub.
h) Expresses
concern about the current proposed location and design of the bus hub, and
requests urgent cross-council collaboration to resolve these issues.
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Notice
of Motion 3 October 2016
|
82
|
Part A Reports
Acknowledgement of Retiring
Community Board Members
Department: Civic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
following community board members are not standing for re-election.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Records
its sincere thanks to the following retiring Community Board members for
their loyal and conscientious service given to the City of Dunedin:
Chalmers Community Board
Mel Aitken 2010-2016
Mosgiel Taieri Community
Board
Bill Feather (Chairperson) 2007-2016
Otago Peninsula Community
Board
Christine Garey (Chairperson) 2007-2016
Saddle Hill Community Board
John Moyle 2007-2016
Jonathan Usher 2007-2016
Strath
Taieri Community Board
Russell Anderson 1989-2016
Waikouaiti Coast Community
Board
Gerard Collings (Chairperson) 2001-2016
Tracey Scurr 2013-2016
|
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Pam Jordan - Governance Support Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Kristy Rusher - Manager Civic and
Legal
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Acknowledgement of Service of
Retiring Members
Department: Civic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Valedictions
from and tributes to retiring Councillors:
a) Cr John Bezett
b) Cr Hilary Calvert
c) Cr Jinty MacTavish
d) Cr Andrew Noone
e) Cr Neville Peat
f) Cr Richard Thomson
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Records its
sincere thanks to John Bezett for the loyal and conscientious service given
to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Dunedin City Council for 24 years
during the period 1989 to 1992 and 1995 to 2016.
The
Council extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good
wish for the future.
b) Records its
sincere thanks to Hilary Calvert for the loyal and conscientious service
given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Dunedin City Council for
three years during the period 2013 to 2016.
The
Council extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good
wish for the future.
c) Records its
sincere thanks to Jinty MacTavish for the loyal and conscientious service
given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Dunedin City Council for six
years during the period 2010 to 2016.
The
Council extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good
wish for the future.
d) Records its
sincere thanks to Andrew Noone for the loyal and conscientious service given
to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Dunedin City Council for 18 years
during the period 1998 to 2016.
The
Council extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good
wish for the future.
e) Records its
sincere thanks to Neville Peat for the loyal and conscientious service given
to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Dunedin City Council for three
years during the period 2013 to 2016.
The
Council extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good
wish for the future.
f) Records its
sincere thanks to Richard Thomson for the loyal and conscientious service
given to the City of Dunedin as a member of the Dunedin City Council for six
years during the period 2010 to 2016.
The
Council extends sincere appreciation for the services rendered and every good
wish for the future.
|
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Pam Jordan - Governance Support Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Kristy Rusher - Manager Civic and
Legal
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Resolution to Exclude the
Public
That the
Council excludes the public from the following part of the proceedings of this
meeting (pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987) 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 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of
Ordinary Council meeting - 19 September 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.
|
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 Confirmation of the Confidential Minutes of
Development Contributions Subcommittee - 2 September 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
C3 Director Appointment for Dunedin City Holdings Limited
and Dunedin City Treasury Limited
|
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.
|
This
report is confidential to protect the privacy of individuals noting that the
information relating to the appointment or reappointment of directors will
be made public by the Mayor and Chair of Dunedin City Holdings Limited once
the applicants have been notified of the decision of Council..
|
|
C4 Annual Reports of Dunedin City Holdings Limited for the
Financial Year 2015/16
|
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.
|
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.
|
The
commercial information within this report has not yet been the subject of a
final audit opinion and Council and it is also subject to final director
approval. Consideration of this matter in public may
prejudice the commerical interests of the entity that is the subject of the
auditor's advice. .
|
|
C5 CEO Appraisal and Remuneration
|
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.
|
|
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.
