|
Hearings Committee
23 January 2017
|
|
Part
A Reports
Proposal to Occupy Public Space at 20 Anzac
Avenue
Department: Property
INTRODUCTION
1 The
purpose of the report is to assist the decision maker by providing an
evaluation of a proposal to occupy public open space at 20 Anzac Avenue.
The decision maker is not bound by advice provided within the report.
This report has been prepared on the basis of information available as at 11
January 2017.
Summary
2 Council
has entered into a conditional agreement to lease part of the Dunedin Railway
Station for a Cobb & Co restaurant. As part of that proposal, a deck for
outdoor restaurant seating is contemplated, which would occupy 150m2
of outdoor space that is currently public open space.
3 The deck
is freestanding from the building and has been granted resource and building
consents. The design complies with the Building Act 2004 and Resource
Management Act 1991. A copy of resource consent LUC-2016-529, is
contained in Attachment A of this report.
4 The
impact of the proposal is that this area would only be available for use by
patrons of the restaurant. The space is immediately adjacent to the building
and bordered by trees that provide some screening of the area. Views from
Anzac Avenue would be unaffected by the placement of the deck.
5 Public
consultation under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 has been
undertaken, with advertising in the Otago Daily Times for the period 24
November 2016 and submissions closing on 17 December 2016.
6 There
were 61 submissions received with 56% of submitters providing feedback that was
out of scope, principally on the design of the proposed deck and the negative
effect it would have on the aesthetic nature of the existing heritage
building.
7 Of the
44% of submissions that were within the scope of the consultation, 59% were in
opposition, and 41% in support.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Commissioner:
a) Considers
the submissions received in in relation to the proposal to grant a lease over
public open space for a deck providing restaurant outdoor dining on Anzac
Square.
b) Decides to
grant, or decline the proposal for a lease on a portion of Anzac Square under
Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Notes that
the requirement to publicly notify the intention to grant the lease has been
satisfied.
Background
8 The site
is located within the Anzac Square/Railway Station Heritage Precinct. The
railway station building itself is also listed in Schedule 25.1 of the district
plan (B005) as a heritage building, with the entire envelope and critical
detailing being protected. The building, platform and gates are listed by
Heritage New Zealand as a category 1 building. This listing does not
include the green space which is the subject of this application and heritage
matters therefore are not relevant to this decision.
9 The
northern end of the Dunedin Railway Station has been vacant for six years,
since Scotia (and prior to that, Valentines) operated a restaurant from the
site.
10 In 2016, Council
entered into an agreement to lease this part of the Railway Station
building for a Cobb & Co family restaurant. Part of the
proposal is to provide outdoor dining on a new, consented deck.
11 The proposed lease
term is 10 years, with the tenant having a right to extend this for another 10
years.
LAND
TO BE OCCUPIED
12 The land that would
be occupied by the deck is held as fee simple and can be considered park under
Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002. That legislative provision
requires Council to consult with the public on any intention to sell, lease or
otherwise dispose of the land for more than six months. There is no
reserve management plan applicable to the site.
13 The land is Part SEC
2 SO 24068, being the land compromised in Certificate of Title OT 15C/427. The
area is located at the north end of the Railway Station currently used as open
space as shown in Attachment C.
14 There are five
cherry trees adjacent to the proposed deck which will not be disturbed, either
directly via a structure within the drip lines of the trees or during
construction. These trees are considered to provide an existing visual barrier
to the space that is proposed for the deck. The majority of foot traffic
at the Railway Station is in the main gardens immediately to the front of the
entrance.
15 A path will be
formed to connect Anzac Square with the proposed deck, but will be limited to a
change in surface treatment and will open to the public.
16 The Draft Parks and
Recreation Strategy (currently
being consulted on) provides for different types of use of the public
space. The restaurant will allow the public an alternate way to use the
space and enjoy the views and amenities of the Anzac Square.
17 Overall, the
proposal is considered to have no reduction in the public amenity of the park
and provide additional opportunities for people to enjoy the space.
Consultation summary
Local
Government Act 2002
18 The public notice of
intention to grant the lease was advertised in the Otago Daily Times on 24
November 2016, with submissions closing on 17 December 2016. The Dunedin City
Council also displayed information on the DCC website for the period of the
consultation, and provided hard copies at the Civic Centre.
19 A copy of the
consultation documentation is attached as Attachment C.
Submissions
20 The scope of the
consultation under the Local Government Act 2002 was the potential loss of
public open space if the lease was granted. Matters such as the design of
the deck and how this fitted with the existing structure are not considered
within scope of the consultation as they do not relate to the loss of public
space.
21 The design of the
proposed deck has been approved by Heritage New Zealand as being in keeping
with a building of this age, significance and importance. A Resource Consent
has also been granted for the deck which shows the proposal is compliant with
the expected design parameters of the District Plan.
22 At the close of
consultation, 61 submissions were received, with 45 (74%) in opposition to the
proposal. The key issue raised in the feedback was the change from public
green space to a leased space with built infrastructure.
23 Of the 61
submissions, 34 (56%) submitters gave feedback that was out of scope of the
consultation, principally the focus was on the design of the proposed deck and
the negative effect it would have on the aesthetic nature of the existing
building.
24 Of the 61
submissions, 27 (44%) were within the scope of the consultation. 16 (59%) were
in opposition, and 11 (41%) in support.
25 A summary of the
submissions is appended as Attachment C.
Options
Option
1 – Grant proposal
26 That the Hearing
Committee recommends granting the lease for the occupation of a part of the
Anzac Square for a deck for the purposes of restaurant outdoor dining.
Advantages
27 The addition of the
restaurant is compatible with recreation use/values and the current tourist
based tenants within the Railway Station. A deck will encourage the use of the
space by the local community, allowing them to enjoy the views and amenity of
the wider Anzac Square.
28 The additional foot
traffic will provide vibrancy to the precinct.
29 Long opening hours
of the restaurant will provide services to tourists who visit the Railway
Station, such as toilets, food, and a space to wait for the train or other
transport links.
30 A restaurant use is
a change in mode of enjoying public space.
31 The operating hours
of the restaurant will provide passive surveillance of activities around the
Railway Station in other public spaces.
32 The restaurant deck
will be another reason for the public to visit the Railway Station and
experience the public open space.
Disadvantages
33 The open space area
subject to the lease will only be available to patrons of the restaurant.
Option
2 – Decline proposal
34 That the Hearing
Committee recommends declining the lease for the occupation of a part of the
Anzac Square for a restaurant.
Advantages
35 The area will remain
as green space, and allow the use of the area by the public.
Disadvantages
36 The Railway Station
customers will not enjoy the vibrancy or connection that an outdoor seating
area would provide.
37 The public enjoying
the remaining public space will not benefit from passive surveillance,
particularly at night.
38 The public will have
less choice in how they enjoy the outdoor space at the Railway Station.
39 The public will have
fewer amenities available to them that complement the use of public open space.
CONCLUSION
40 Having regard to the
above assessment, I recommend that the Hearing Committee receive this report
and make a decision whether or not to grant the proposal for lease.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Tim Buchanan - Property Officer
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Kevin Taylor - Property Manager
Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and
Networks
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a
|
Resource Consent
LUC-2016-529 Proposed Deck
|
10
|
|
b
|
Submission Summary
|
31
|
|
c
|
Consultation Documents
|
37
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
This decision enables democratic local decision making and
action by, and on behalf of communities by considering consultation feedback
and making a recommendation.
|
|
Fit with strategic
framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☐
|
The proposal will contribute towards the Draft Parks and
Recreation policy as it provides a different mode of interacting with the
Anzac Square.
The proposal contributes to the Economic Development
Strategy by added a new tourism support business to a strategic location
within Dunedin, providing vibrancy, services and passive security to an area
with high tourist numbers.
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.
|
|
Sustainability
The proposed lease does not have any implications for
sustainability. A separate approval process will deal with this.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
No implications.
|
|
Financial
considerations
This report considers the disposal and use of public land.
Granting the proposal will allow the Dunedin City Council to lease the land
required to build a deck. The erection of the deck has been the subject
of successful applications for building consent and resource consent.
|
|
Significance
The Dunedin Railway Station is listed as a significant
property in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This
proposal is considered to be of high significance under the Council’s
Significance & Engagement Policy. The consultation process satisfies the
requirement for community consultation.
|
|
Engagement –
external
Heritage New Zealand have been engaged in the design
process and are supportive of the proposal.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
Parks and Recreation have provided feedback on the
proposal and the effects on the Draft Parks and Recreation Policy.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
The proposed change from a public space to that of a
leased area will not change the risk rating of this activity
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
This decision is being made by an independent decision
maker as the Council is the owner of the asset the subject of this decision.
|
|
Community Boards
There are no specific implications for Community Boards.
|
|
Hearings Committee
23 January 2017
|
|
25 November 2016
Dunedin City Council, City Property
C/- Nigel Bryce
Ryder Consulting Limited
P O Box 1023
Dunedin 9054
Dear Nigel
RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC-2016-529:
20 ANZAC AVENUE, DUNEDIN
Your application for
resource consent to add a deck and make alterations to a heritage building was
processed on a non-notified basis in accordance with sections 95A to 95G of the
Resource Management Act 1991 by an independent planning consultant, Mr Allan
Cubitt. In considering those sections, it was determined that any adverse
effects would be no more than minor, written approvals had been obtained from
all potentially affected parties in respect of the application, and there were
no special circumstances in relation to the proposal. Therefore, public
notification of the application was not required, and the application was
considered by independent commissioner Mr Colin Weatherall under delegated
authority on 25 November 2016.
The council has granted
consent to the application, with conditions. The report underpinning the
decision is outlined below, and the decision certificate, which includes
details of the consent conditions, is included with this letter.
·
DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
The building subject to
this resource consent application is the historic Dunedin Railway Station,
which is located at 20 Anzac Avenue. A new Cobb & Co restaurant
is to be established in the northern end of the station building.
As a part of that development, the applicant proposes to establish a deck
(22.5m by 5.575m) within the green space directly adjoining the North West
facade of the building to provide for outdoor dining. The deck will sit on its
own support piles and will have steel bearers and a hardwood timber floor. The
balustrades will be made of clear glass (designed to meet the NZ code
requirements) and will sit 1300mm above the finished floor level, which is
approximately 600-700mm above ground level.
Access to the deck will
be via a path to be established from the footpath at the street edge that will
pass under the existing cherry blossom trees (which are not to be disturbed).
This path will lead up to a steel arch (3.455m high and 1.7m wide) within which
a feature lantern, with ‘COBB & CO’ text, will hang. The arch
will be finished in gloss black paint and will have a finished height of
approximately 2.4m above existing ground level.
A gas fire is to be
located at the northern end of the deck. The design of this feature is to
reflect the Edwardian heritage of the station and follows the shape of a
railway carriage. Of cast iron construction, the fire will stand 1500mm high
and will be 1000mm wide and 500mm deep.
The deck is to be
physically separate from the building and will be connected to it by a single
bridge (1.785m wide and 2.49m long) to the main external entrance to the
restaurant. This entrance will be formed in existing arched window with the
incorporation of new timber double doors set within the existing window
joinery. No physical alteration of the original stone fabric of the building
will occur.
The application plans
provided indicate a connection from the deck to the kitchen via a deck on the
northern part of the deck. This is no longer proposed so does not form part of
this consent. Similarly, the application documentation also includes
figures that indicate signage within the windows of the station building. The
applicant has advised that this application does not extend to the signage shown
in those drawings and that if need be a separate application will be made for
signage in the future.
For completeness, I also note that the
original site plan submitted with the application, 1260 A-101 B, indicated a
‘Proposed Cobb & Co. Wagon Prop’ within the lawn area to the
north of the deck. This plan was withdrawn and substituted with a plan that no
longer shows that feature. Hence it is not part of this application.
REASONS
FOR APPLICATION
Dunedin currently has
two district plans: the Operative Dunedin City District Plan (the Operative
Plan), and the Proposed Second Generation Dunedin City District Plan (the
Proposed Plan). Until the Proposed Plan is made fully operative, both
district plans need to be considered in determining the activity status and
deciding what aspects of the activity require resource consent.
Operative Plan
The subject site zone Central
Activity Area. Restaurants and licensed premises are permitted within
this zone. However the activity must comply with the permitted activity
standards set out in Rule 9.5.2. This proposal does not comply with either Rule 9.5.2(i), as no front yards or side yards are permitted or Rule
9.5.2(ii) which requires a minimum height of 9 metres for any structure.
Non-compliance with Rule 9.5.2(i) is a non-complying activity consent pursuant
to Rule 9.5.4 while non-compliance with Rule 9.5.2(ii) is as a restricted
discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 9.5.3(i).
The site is also
located within the Anzac Square/ Railway Station Heritage Precinct. The
railway station building itself is also listed in Schedule 25.1 of the plan
(B005) as a heritage building,
with the entire envelope and critical detailing being
protected. The building,
platform and gates are listed by Heritage New Zealand as a category 1 building.
Rule 13.7.3(i)
identifies the alteration and addition to buildings, including signs, listed
under Schedule 25.1 as restricted discretionary activities.
Council’s discretion is restricted to the effect the proposed works will
have on the buildings heritage value.
Rule 13.7.3(iii) also
identifies the alteration and addition to buildings, located within a heritage
precinct as restricted discretionary activities. Council’s
discretion is restricted to the effect the proposed works will have on the
building’s relationship with, and contribution to, the townscape and
heritage values of the precinct.
Proposed Plan
The subject site is located within the
Central Business District of the proposed District Plan. Again, restaurants and licensed premises are permitted within this
zone. The site is listed as a Heritage Site (HS12) and is located in the Stuart
Street Commercial Heritage Precinct. The railway station building itself is
listed as a Heritage Building (B005).
There are a number of
rules under Rule 18.3.6 that apply to the addition or alteration of heritage
buildings and the construction of new structures over 2.5m high or 2m2 in a
heritage precinct or heritage site. These activities are restricted
discretionary activities. However at the time of assessing this application, the relevant
rule provisions of the proposed plan have not been given effect or made operative,
and are subject to submissions and could change as a consequence of the
submission process. Accordingly, the council need not have regard to the
rule provisions of the proposed plan as part of the assessment of this
application.
Activity Status
Overall, having regard
to both district plans, the proposal is considered to be a non-complying activity,
in accordance with the operative plan.
·
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
·
Affected Persons
The written approval of Heritage New
Zealand (HNZ) was obtained by
the applicant on 10 November 2016. In accordance with Section
104(3)(a)(ii) of the Resource Management Act, the council cannot have regard to
the effects of the activity on this party.
No other persons are considered to be
adversely affected by this proposal for the reasons outlined below in the
section headed ‘Effects on the Environment’.
·
Effects on the Environment
The following assessment of effects on the
environment has been carried out in accordance with sections 104, 104B and 104C
of the Resource Management Act 1991.
(i) Central
Activity Zone Standards
This part of the application is a
non-complying activity. While Section 104B enables all matters to be considered
in relation to non-complying activities, the non-compliance with the yard
setback is considered a technicality given the nature of the activity, a low
level deck, and the location within it sits, a precinct where open space is to
be maintained (see the Anzac
Square/ Railway Station Heritage Precinct precinct
value relating to the “large expanse of ground in front of the Railway
Station”). The adverse effect of the deck in this
context has been found to be minor. For similar reasons, the non-compliance
with the height minimum is also seen as a technicality. The impact of a lack of
height has been considered below in relation to the precinct values. Again the
effect of this has been found to be less than minor.
(ii) Heritage Values Assessment.
While the activity overall is a
non-complying activity, the key issue relates to the impact on heritage values.
The matters over which Council has restricted
the exercise of its discretion to are very narrow as follows:
· The effect the proposed works will have on the
buildings heritage value.
· The effect the proposed works will have on the
building’s relationship with, and contribution to, the townscape and
heritage values of the precinct.
In considering the
effect of the proposal upon these values, the relevant rule (Rule 13.7.3)
contains a number of assessment matters that are considered useful in
determining the significance of any such these effects. While the application
did not contain an assessment from a heritage expert, the applicant’s
assessment was guided by these matters.
In terms of the effects on the heritage
precinct values, the applicant concluded that proposed
deck and associated built elements that form part of this structure will not
visually detract from the Dunedin Railway Building’s relationship with,
and contribution to, heritage values of the Anzac Square/Railway Station
Heritage Precinct. Similarly in terms of the effects on
the heritage values of the building itself, the
applicant considers these to be less than minor.
Importantly, the
application has the support of HNZ. HNZ advised that while “the
new deck and associated furniture will have an impact in that they will
partially obscure the front of the building, the affected area is considered to
be somewhat secondary to the main front elevation of the building by virtue of
the fact that it is set in from the main building and is more plainly
decorated. It is noted that the deck will not be physically attached to the
building meaning that there will be no impact on the building fabric, except
for the replacement of an existing window with double doors. The proposed deck
will provide a useful outdoor area for the restaurant which in turn provides a
long term use for this part of the building. On balance, Heritage New Zealand
is supportive of the proposed alterations.”
As is standard practice with the assessment of such an
application, Council’s urban designer Mr Peter Christos (who holds a
bachelor degree in Landscape Architecture and a post graduate diploma in Urban
Design) has reviewed the application and has provided expert comment in
relation to the likely effects on streetscape and precinct values arising from
proposed works. Council also commissioned a report from an independent
architect, Mr John Gray, whose specialist area of expertise is in
‘Building Heritage and Conservation Architecture’. Of particular
note is the fact that Mr Gray was the Design and Project Architect for the Restoration and adaptive
reuse, Dunedin Railway Station Redevelopment project, interior and exterior
works, carried out between approximately 1995 and 2002
Both experts have assessed the proposal in
the context of the precinct values (Set out at Section 13.6.5, page 13.35 of
the Plan) that are relevant to their areas of expertise as follows:
The presence of historic buildings, which include the
Railway Station, Law Courts and Dunedin Prison
Mr Gray advises that the proposal is consistent with this
value. Despite being built immediately adjacent to the Dunedin Railway Station,
Mr Gray notes that “the deck has been located and designed to be
visually recessed from the main façade of the station building, behind
the building turret and behind the row of 5 large Cherry Trees. As a result,
the proposed deck is unlikely to detract from the prominence of the main
heritage buildings of this precinct.”
The
significance of natural stone as a building material
Both Mr Gray and Mr Christos address this value. Mr Gray is
of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with this precinct value. He
notes that “while the new deck structure is built of steel, timber and
glass balustrading, it will not … adversely block views of the buildings
magnificent contrasting “black and white” stonework”. He
agrees with the applicant that the deck will reflect the historic use of the
Railway Building and will incorporate materials that are consistent with
Edwardian Architecture.
Mr Christos makes similar comments, noting
that the work will not physically alter, obscure or detract from the buildings
stone masonry. In his view the “the design has responded to other materials
(timber and steel) that also feature as part of the building” and he
considers the restoration of the doorway a “positive change
that will see the simple removal of an existing temporary boarding.”
The
height of the buildings on the northern border of the precinct defines its edge
This value is relevant as the proposed deck is located
towards the northern edge of this precinct. Noting only a total height above
ground of approximately 2m, Mr Gray advises that “this lack of significant height, together
with the recessed location, will not impinge, or have effect on the height of
the Buildings on the northern border of the precinct.”
There are no new buildings
which detract from the architectural significance of the area
Both Mr Gray and Mr Christos address this
value. Mr Christos advises as follows:
“The
proposed deck is respectful of the Dunedin Railway Station and, in an effort to
not only detract from but also to contribute to heritage values, makes a nice
gesture toward the Station’s history through the use of steel elements
and hardwood timber flooring. Since the deck will sit separate from the
building and be freestanding on its own support piles, it could be removed
easily in the future if need be. Therefore, I am satisfied that the external
integrity of this iconic building is maintained. Similarly the proposed glass
balustrades will add a light weight contemporary touch and meet safety
requirements without detracting from the existing context.”
Mr Gray agrees with this view noting that “it
is somewhat recessed away from the predominant and historically significant
front façade of the Railway Station and can be easily removed without
damage if no longer required”. He concludes that the proposal will
not adversely detract from the architectural significance of the area.
Sunlight penetration to the square is important
Mr Gray notes the structure will not block sunlight
penetration to Anzac Square and is therefore consistent with this precinct
value.
Wrought iron fences along Anzac Avenue and lower High
Street
Mr Gray again finds the proposal consistent with this
precinct value as the “deck structure is to be constructed
predominantly of steel with detailing to reflect the historic nature of the
main building and to be consistent with the surrounding Victorian and Edwardian
architecture. The main entrance steps have steel elements, handrails and
structure, to reflect the significance of the wrought iron fences adjacent to
the proposed structure.”
Off street parking is shielded by fences from the street
frontage
This value is not applicable to the proposal.
Buildings adjacent to heritage buildings are of comparable
heights
This value is not relevant to a structure
of this nature.
Street furniture is in character with the area
Mr Gray considers the proposed deck structure to be more in
keeping with street furniture than a building. Because it has been designed
with elements and materials consistent with the surrounding Victorian and
Edwardian architecture, he finds the proposal is consistent with this precinct
value.
The view of the First Church Spire
The proposal is not applicable to this value.
The large expanse of ground in front of the Railway Station
Mr Gray considers that the recessive location of the
proposed deck adjacent to the single storied north wing does not impinge upon
the large expanse of ground in front of the building (occupied by the Flemish
knot garden and known as Anzac Square). As an urban designer, Mr Christos has
considered this is a wider sense and has not limited his assessment to Anzac
Square, which I consider appropriate. In this context, Mr Christos has made the
following comments:
The setting of the station is critical. This
includes the Flemish gardens, lawns and cherry trees along Anzac Avenue in
front of the building. As noted by the applicant, it is important that the
existing Cherry trees (which are themselves a part of the site’s heritage
and contribute significantly to townscape values) are both retained and
safeguarded through the construction process. Although this point is noted
multiple times in writing, I would like to see the trees drawn into the ground
floor plan, so as to better assess their relationship with the proposed design.
This could be a quick amendment to the drawings, and may reveal a previously
unrealised opportunity to further enhance the site’s townscape values.
For example, the location of the proposed path seems arbitrary in that it does
not align with any particular element of the Station, nor does it link obviously
to existing pathways on site. If existing trees and pathways were drawn into
the ground floor plan, a more nuanced solution might be found that both
safeguards the existing trees and enhances the pedestrian experience of a
contemporary, yet thoughtful response to heritage and townscape values. Details
outlining how the trees will be protected during construction should also be
provided.
I agree with Mr Christos that if possible, it would be
appropriate to align the path with an element of the Station. However the most
important issue in this context is the protection of the existing Cherry
trees which Mr Christos notes are a part of the site’s heritage and
contribute significantly to townscape values. Having reviewed the plans and
discussed this issue with the applicants planning consultant, there does not
appear to be any scope to achieve the outcome sought by Mr Christos given the
need to avoid damage to the trees. A condition requiring the protection
of the trees during construction has been attached but no other condition
regarding the location of the pathway is considered necessary.
Overall I am satisfied that the location of the deck, given
its recessive positioning behind the main buildings’ tower and the row of Cherry trees, will have no more than a minor adverse effect on the
open space in front of the building.
Colours are subdued and are in keeping with the historic
character of the precinct: unpainted red brick, off white or cream colours.
Darker colours can be used to good effect but are subdued, such as deep green
or grey as opposed to bright colours like red or yellow
Both Mr Gray and Mr Christos have considered this matter
and are comfortable that the finishes proposed are consistent with the precinct
values.
Signage is minimal and Signs are not suspended from facades
As noted above, this application only seeks consent for the
signage (being the words ‘Cobb & Co’) on the illuminated
lantern suspended from an arched metal structure at the main entry steps to the
deck. This sign is considered is compatible with the precinct values.
Lack of fences in front of the law courts and Dunedin
Prison shows off these buildings’ architectural detailing
This particular value is not specifically relevant to this
site. However Mr Gray has noted that while the proposed deck will partially
obscure the single storied north wing of the building, the effect of this on
heritage values will not be more than minor.
Other Matters
The assessments of both Mr Gray and Mr Christos raise other
matters that need consideration. Mr Gray highlights the existing timber framed
Loading Dock located immediately behind the stone tower. This is the point at
which the new steel entry bridge will connect the deck to the main restaurant
entrance. Mr Gray advises that the Loading Dock is original fabric, and
therefore has a Category 1 rating, but is not shown on any drawings presented
as part of the Annexure 3 documents, including Sheet A-201 D (the floor plan)
or A-501 B (sections). The plans show a bridge supporting foundation beam,
where the Loading Dock is presently located but do not indicate how the new
bridge is to be constructed over/through the loading dock or how its heritage
fabric is to be protected.
This has been brought to the
applicant’s attention who met with Jonathan
Howard of HNZ who confirmed the Loading Dock to be an original part of the
Dunedin Railway Station. Agreement was reached between the parties that the
Loading Dock will be retained but that its height would need to be marginally
lowered in order for the proposed footbridge connection to be level with the
existing floor level of the proposed Cobb & Co Restaurant. A letter
to this affect was received by Council on 24 November, which formally amended
the application to achieve retention of the existing Timber Loading Dock. The
applicant has recommended that the detailed design to support the lowering of
the Timber Loading Dock and changes to the design of new footbridge be advanced
by way of a pre-commencement condition, which requires final details to be
submitted to the satisfaction of the Resource Consents Manager. I agree that is
the appropriate response to the issue and have included the condition
accordingly.
Mr Christos highlights the need to take
care with how the proposed steel arch with gate and lantern are detailed so as “to
avoid a ‘kitsch’ or haphazard aesthetic that detracts from heritage
values.” While he acknowledges that these elements are clever in
keeping signage integrated and minimal while providing clear way-finding cues
to visitors, he believes that minor tweaks in the design of these elements “could
be achieved easily and make all the difference in built results.” As
an example, he notes that “the arch’s radius does not appear to
match existing arched openings and would be better in tune with the existing
Station if it (and the steps) were made a bit wider so as to mimic existing
arch proportions”.
The applicant has been
given the opportunity to respond to these suggestions and has advised as
follows:
We note that Drawing
A-201-Rev D identified that the location of the proposed steel arch and stairs
are to be confirmed and that their location must be coordinated with tree
locations. This is a matter that should be confirmed by way of a
condition of consent, in consultation with the Council’s Reserves
Department. We note that final details of the proposed arch and stairs
will be largely dictated by the position of these existing trees and not the
adjacent windows. Drawing A-201-Rev D identifies that the proposed steel
arch and stairs are approximately 13.5 metres to the north of the existing
drainage channel on the north side of the Railway Building (articulated in Figure
2 below). Given the location of the seating area servicing the gas
fire portion of the deck, it is likely that the final location of the arch and
stairs will not greatly change and will need to be sited between the existing
trees (with the pathway formed by in situ paving stones).
From an aesthetic
point of view, the proposed arch will unlikely be a central visual element when
viewed from wider perspectives given that it will sit to the rear of the
existing trees, which are of a similar height and will largely obscure this
structure.
We note that
the scale of the proposed steel arch has been carefully considered and we do
not support the widening of the proposed arch in order to better articulate
with width of the existing arch proportions. We note that Heritage New
Zealand has approved this aspect of the design.
While I again agree with the sentiments of
Mr Christos, I accept the applicant’s position on this
matter. The key issue is again coordinating the location of
these features with location of the trees. I also agree that the archway
is unlikely to be viewed in a wider context given its location behind the trees
and reflecting the width of the window opening is unlikely to achieve any
significant heritage or townscape gains.
Conclusion on Heritage Effects
After having considered the application
documentation, the position of Heritage NZ and the evidence provided by the
experts, Mr Gray and Mr Christos, I am of the view that the adverse effects of
the proposal on the heritage values of the building and surrounding area will
be no more than minor. The
deck has been intentionally designed to be separate from the building, without
any modification of the stone masonry, so that it can easily be removed if
necessary. The design of the deck and associated features reflects the historic
use of the building and incorporates materials
consistent with the Edwardian Architecture. Its location is recessive and
discreet, being located behind the main buildings’ tower and the row of
Cherry trees, and sits adjacent to a facade that is secondary and less detailed
than the main part of the building. The deck will be utilised in conjunction
with a restaurant which is considered a positive long term use for this part of
the building and one that will enable the public to appreciate the historic
values of the building.
·
CONSENT DECISION
That pursuant to Section 34A(1) and 104B
and after having regard to Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act
1991, and the provisions of the Operative Plan, the
Dunedin City Council grants consent to a non-complying activity
being the addition of a deck
and alterations to a heritage building (the Dunedin Railway Station building) at 20 Anzac Avenue, legally
described as Section 2 SO
Plan 24068 (computer freehold register OT15C/427), subject to conditions imposed
under Section 108 of the Act, as shown on the attached certificate.
·
REASONS
·
Effects
In accordance with Section 104(1)(a) of the
Resource Management Act 1991, the actual and potential adverse effects
associated with the proposed activity have been assessed and are outlined
above. It is considered that the proposed activity will have no more than minor
adverse effects on the environment.
·
Objectives and Policies
In accordance with Section 104(1)(b) of the
Resource Management Act 1991, the objectives and policies of the Operative Plan
and the Proposed Plan were taken into account in assessing the
application.
Operative Plan
The proposal is considered to be consistent
with the following key objectives and policies:
· Objectives
13.2.2, 13.2.3, 13.2.4, 13.2.5 and 13.2.6 and Policies 13.3.4, 13.3.5, 13.3.9
and 13.3.10 (Townscape Section) which seek to ensure that the character of
significant townscape and heritage precincts is maintained or enhanced;
that buildings of heritage value are recognised and protected; and to
encourage the adaptive re-use of buildings with townscape or heritage
values. The proposal has been designed and located to address these
issues in a positive way. The proposal is considered consistent with the
objectives and policies of the Townscape section.
The application also considered the
proposal against the objectives and policies of Section 9 – Activity
zones, Section 15 Trees and Section 19 – Signs. The applicant concludes
that the proposal is consistent with the policy provisions of these sections and
I agree. The underlying use is permitted in the Central Activity zone and the
trees on the site will not be adversely affected. While the use does not comply
with the yard standards, this has a less than minor effect in this
location. It therefore follows that the activity is consistent with the
policy outcomes sought by the Plan in these sections.
Proposed Plan
The proposal is considered to be consistent
with the following objectives and policies from the proposed plan:
· Objective 13.2.1 and Policies 13.2.1.1, 13.2.1.5 and 13.2.1.7
(Heritage Section) which seek similar outcomes to
the operative District Plan.
Summary
The proposal is considered to be generally
consistent with the objectives and policies of both the operative plan and the
proposed plan.
Section 104D
Section 104D of the Resource Management Act
requires that a resource consent for a non-complying activity must not be
granted unless the proposal can meet one of two limbs. The limbs of
section 104D require that the adverse effects on the environment will be no
more than minor, or the application is for an activity which will not be
contrary to the objectives and policies of either the relevant plan or the
relevant proposed plan. In my opinion, the proposal will have effects
which are no more than minor and it is not contrary to the objectives and
policies of the District Plan. Therefore Council can exercise its discretion
under Section 104D to grant consent subject to the recommended conditions.
Other Matters
Case law has
suggested that in order to grant consent to a non-complying activity, the
application needs to be a ‘true exception’ otherwise, in terms of
precedent effects, the integrity of the Plan could be undermined. In this
instance, the non-complying aspect of the proposal is considered a technicality
given the nature of the activity Therefore, the proposal is not considered to
challenge the integrity of the District Plan.
RIGHTS OF
OBJECTION
In accordance with Section 357A of the
Resource Management Act 1991, the consent holder may object to this decision or
any condition within 15 working days of the decision being received, by
applying in writing to the Dunedin City Council at the following address:
Senior Planner -
Enquiries
Dunedin City
Council
P O Box 5045
Moray Place
Dunedin 9058
MONITORING
Section 35(2)(d) of the RMA requires every
council to monitor resource consents that have effect in its region or
district. The scale and nature of the activity, the complexity and number
of the conditions needed to address the environmental effects and whether the
conditions have been complied with determine the number of monitoring
inspections required. Given the nature of your intended works, this
consent will require one inspection.
The City Planning Department sets out the
fixed fees charged for monitoring in its schedule of fees. The fee for your
scheduled inspection will be included in the invoice for your application.
If additional inspections are required
beyond those scheduled at the time the consent is issued, there is the ability
to apply additional charges to cover the costs of the extra inspections.
You can reduce the need for additional inspections by complying with the
conditions of consent in a timely manner and by ensuring ongoing compliance
with those conditions. Please ensure that you read the conditions of your
consent carefully to establish your obligations when exercising your
consents.
Yours faithfully
Allan Cubitt
·
Consultant Planner
Approved
Colin Weatherall
Commissioner
|
Hearings Committee
23 January 2017
|
|
·
ADDRESS: 20 Anzac Avenue, Dunedin
CONSENT TYPE AND NUMBER: Land
Use LUC-2016-529
LAPSE DATE: 25 November 2021, unless the consent has been given effect to before
this date
DECISION:
That pursuant to Section 34A(1) and 104B
and after having regard to Sections 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act
1991, and the provisions of the Operative Plan, the
Dunedin City Council grants consent to a non-complying activity
being the addition of a deck
and alterations to a heritage building (the Dunedin Railway Station building) at 20 Anzac Avenue, legally
described as Section 2 SO
Plan 24068 (computer freehold register OT15C/427), subject to conditions imposed
under Section 108 of the Act, as shown below.
Conditions:
1 The proposal shall be undertaken in
general accordance with the details submitted with the resource consent
application received by the Council on 28 October 2016, and the approved plans
attached as Appendix 1, and as modified by the letter and documentation received by Council on 24 November 2016, except as amended by the following conditions.
2 That this consent does not authorise
the following features shown on the approved plans:
· The entry to the kitchen shown on the plans 1260 A-101 B, 1206 A-201
D, 1206 A-202 B and 1206 A-401 B.
· The signage shown in Figure 4: Artist Drawing of the proposed deck
or the cover sheet 1260 A-001 C, with the exception of the lantern sign.
3 With respect to the Cherry trees on
the site the following conditions shall apply:
a) Prior to any construction activity occurring on the site, the
consent holder shall liaise with Councils Parks Officer – Trees to
finalise the most suitable location for the access pathway so as to minimise
any disruption to the trees.
b) Prior to, and at all times during construction activity on the site,
the guidelines for working in close proximity to trees shall be adhered to
(guideline attached).
c) In addition to the guidelines for working in close proximity to
trees, tree protection zones (TPZs) shall be created by fencing off the area
directly beneath the drip line of the trees. With the exception of the work
necessary to create the access pathway, these TPZs shall remain a complete
exclusion zone clear and free of any traffic, construction materials or debris
throughout the construction period. This includes foot traffic, vehicle access,
service trenches, and the lowering or raising of the existing ground level.
Parks Officer – Trees shall be contacted prior to the start of any work
to assess the protection zones.
d) Any work that is to take place within the TPZ of the trees for the
construction of the pathway shall be undertaken in consultation with Parks
Officer – Trees.
4 Prior
to undertaking the work, the consent holder shall provide details of the
amended footbridge design and alterations to the existing Timber Loading Dock
necessary for this feature to be retained as an original component of the
Dunedin Railway Building. The final design shall be submitted to the
satisfaction of the Resource Consents Manager and shall provide for the
following:
(a) Details of the changes to the
existing Timber Loading Dock support piles and joists, including any changes in
height and dock levels necessary to support the footbridge set out in (c)
below;
(b) Details and construction
methodology associated with the removal and subsequent re-fixing of the
existing Timber Loading Dock timber decking to enable works to implement
changes in (a) above. The information necessary to support this component
of the condition shall include details of the final fixings (nails) to be
utilised to re-fix the timber decking;
(c) Details of the 10mm steel
footbridge plate that is proposed to extend from the point above the existing
drainage channel to the edge of the main entrance doorway sill and details of
balustrading and how this will be connected to this steel plate;
(d) Details of the connection
between the steel platform identified in (c) above and the remaining footbridge
design connected to the deck; and
(e) The consent holder shall
submit details of consultation undertaken with Heritage New Zealand relating to
the retention of Timber Loading Dock and the final details and construction
methodology set out in (a) to (d) above.
·
Advice Notes:
1. Buildings built before 1900 or sites which were in use before that
time are considered archaeological sites under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere
Taonga Act 2014. Before disturbing an archaeological site, or to check
whether a site is an archaeological site, the consent holder is advised to
discuss their proposal with Heritage New Zealand.
2. In addition to the conditions
of resource consent, the Resource Management Act establishes through Sections
16 and 17 a duty for all persons to avoid unreasonable noise, and to avoid, remedy
or mitigate any adverse effect created from an activity they undertake.
3. A resource consent is
pertinent to the property to which it relates, and consequently the ability to
exercise this consent is not restricted to the party who applied and/or paid
for the consent application.
4. The lapse period specified
above may be extended on application to the council pursuant to Section 125 of
the Resource Management Act 1991.
5. It is the responsibility of
any party exercising this consent to comply with any conditions imposed on
their resource consent prior to and during (as applicable) exercising the
resource consent. Failure to comply with the conditions may result in
prosecution, the penalties for which are outlined in Section 339 of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
6. This is a
resource consent. Please contact the Council’s Building Control Office,
Development Services, about the building consent requirements for the work.
7. The proposal does not include
authorisation for signage, a proposed replica coach and any additional exterior
lighting. These aspects will need to be authorised by a further resource
consent application.
Issued at Dunedin on 25 November 2016
Allan Cubitt
Consultant Planner
Approved
Colin Weatherall
Commissioner
