in the matter of - waipa district council · in the matter of: the resource management act 1991....

IN THE MATTER OF: The Resource Management Act

1991.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF: An application for Land Use

Resource Consent to redevelop

and expand an existing visitor

accommodation activity located

at 20 Peake Road, Cambridge.

BY: The Brian Perry Charitable Trust

Applicant

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD CHARLES FALCONER

27 October 2016

2

Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Richard Charles Falconer. I am a senior planner at BCD Group, an

engineering and planning consultancy based in Hamilton. I hold the qualification of

Bachelor of Science (Technology) majoring in Resource and Environmental Planning

from the University of Waikato and am an Associate of the New Zealand Planning

Institute. I have some 12 years’ experience in town planning and resource

management in both a Local Government (consent processing) and Private Sector

capacity across the Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Taranaki Regions.

2. My professional experience is specifically in the area of land use and subdivision

planning (resource consents) covering a broad range of developments including

commercial, industrial, residential, environmental and rural developments and

activities. I have recently been involved in both processing and obtaining resource

consents for several ‘non-farming’ developments within the greater Waikato Region,

in my capacity as Council’s (both Waikato and Waipa) consultant planner and for a

number of private clients.

3. I have read the “Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses” contained in the

Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014, and I agree to comply with this

Code. The evidence I will present today is within my area of expertise, except where

I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. I have not omitted to

consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I

express.

INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROJECT

4. BCD Group was engaged by The Brian Perry Charitable Trust (the “Trust”) in June

2015 to provide town planning consultancy services in relation to the redevelopment

and expansion of the existing visitor accommodation development at 20 Peake Road.

I have personally been involved in this project and consent process since it was first

presented to BCD Group by the Trust.

3


SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

5. The scope of my evidence will be to briefly describe the proposal, outline the

relevant District Plan matters and reiterate my assessment of the actual or potential

adverse environmental effects, noting the context of the existing receiving

environment. I will also comment on the matters raised by the submitters.

6. I have reviewed the s42A report prepared by Council’s Reporting Planner, Ms Hayley

Thomas. Overall, I generally agree with the assessment of the proposal in relation to

the relevant planning provisions, and its recommendations. However, I have reached

a different conclusion with respect to the standing of the proposal against particular

objectives and policies; a matter I will discuss within my evidence. Notwithstanding

this, overall, I concur with the conclusions reached with respect to the effects of the

proposal and I support the recommendation that the consent should be granted,

subject to conditions.

7. I have reviewed the recommended conditions of consent which are set out within

Appendix 7 of the s42A report and, other than a few areas of disagreement, in my

opinion the draft conditions are appropriate and acceptable. However, I will discuss

the draft conditions in more detail later in my evidence.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND EXISTING LAND USE

8. The application site is located on Peake Road, approximately 170m north of its

intersection with Cambridge Road. The site is square and flat and comprises a total

area of 1.8801ha.

9. The site is presently developed with a single storey linear block located roughly in the

centre of the site which supports a consented visitor accommodation activity with a

maximum occupancy in the order of 25 guests. Adjacent the accommodation

buildings is a reception building which also accommodates a self-contained unit

4


utilised as a residence for an on-site manager. Other buildings include several small

feed barns to the east and west of the accommodation building.

10. The existing visitor accommodation activity has a reasonably well documented

history on this site, with the first consent granted in 1991 which involved the

conversion of a stables building on site for short stay ‘bed sit’ accommodation.

Further planning and building consents were granted thereafter, the combination of

which generally representing the scale, form and intensity of the activity that

continues to operate.

11. In my view, the current visitor accommodation activity on site has clear and

legitimate existing use rights to operate from this rural property. This point will be

reflected further on in other sections of my evidence.

12. The site is also occupied by a two storied dwelling located in the south eastern

corner, which is presently tenanted separate of the visitor accommodation activity.

This dwelling has its own formed vehicle entrance from Peake Road adjacent the

southern boundary of the site. The dwelling will continue to support a residential

tenant and does not otherwise comprise part of the proposed visitor accommodation

activity.

13. Between the reception and accommodation blocks is a car parking and circulation

area for the accommodation activity which is accessed via a formed entrance from

Peake Road. The remainder of the site comprises open pasture with only the site

perimeter enclosed by fencing. The entire eastern boundary and part of the western

(road) boundary is enclosed by way a barberry hedge. The site supports several

mature trees which stand alone or comprise an ordered vegetative screen or shelter

belt.

5


SURROUNDING CONTEXT

14. The pattern of development surrounding the site is characterised by small rural lots,

including rural-residential lifestyle blocks, some of which include the keeping of

horses and other light grazing activities. There is a notable absence of any large,

high intensity rural activities, such as dairy. The adjoining site at 16 Peake Road is a

relatively small residential lot which supports no rural use.

15. There are also a number of non-rural activities within the locality including a retail

garden centre approximately 100m to the south (‘Amber Nursery’), a substantial

international cycling facility (‘Avantidrome’) with public bike skills park (‘Gallagher

Bike Skills Park’) and a private school on a large rural campus (St Peters School), all of

which are located on the southern side of Cambridge Road. Ms Ryder’s landscape

and visual assessment has further detailed the character of the area and I concur

with her assessment.

16. Ms Makinson has described in detail the existing roading environment adjacent the

site and I do not intend to duplicate this in my evidence, other than to note that I

concur with Ms Makinson’s description.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

17. This proposal is described in detail within the assessment of effects report submitted

with the application, within the further information dated the 26th of September

2016 and within the s42A report. I do not intend to repeat this description in great

detail. However, by way of a summary, the proposal comprises the re-development

and expansion of the existing visitor accommodation development. In broad terms

the proposal comprises the following:

Demolition/removal of the existing accommodation buildings and reception

building;

6


A new purpose designed visitor accommodation development to support up

to 86 guests within a campus-like environment exhibiting a from and design

of building exhibiting a ‘rural aesthetic’;

A variety of self-contained accommodation typologies including studios, two

bedroom units and dormitory-style accommodation;

A central reception building incorporation a self-contained manager’s

residence;

A guest services building accommodating meeting rooms, communal laundry,

bathrooms and a utility/workshop space, all for the exclusive use of guests;

Two-way vehicle entrance from Peake Road to a one-way sealed carriageway;

Car parking for 37 cars, including two for the manager, with provision for

parking for larger vehicles (buses, trailers);

Generous landscaped grounds including an open communal green, generous

planting throughout the development and a planted earth bund along the

northern and western boundaries;

Stormwater management on site by way of an engineer designed ground

soakage system which has been notionally located adjacent the southern

boundary.

Wastewater management by way of a tank on site which is to be pumped to

an existing private wastewater line owned by St Peters, itself connecting to

Councils reticulated wastewater network;

Water supply to be provided by way of a combination of an existing bore

(both on site and/or from St Peters), rain water collection and a new

connection to Council’s reticulated trickle-feed system.

DISTRICT PLAN ASSESSMENT

18. The site is zoned Rural under the Proposed Waipa District Plan (PDP). Council’s

intramaps identifies a small slither of the property as being comprised of filled

ground and, overall, classifies the site as comprising ‘high class soils’. The area of

7


filled ground sits well away from the proposed buildings and vehicle carriageways.

The ‘high class soil’ classification is described in more detail further on in my

evidence.

19. The proposal triggers resource consent with respect to the provisions of the PDP for

the following matters:

Rule 4.4.1.5 (b) – Non-complying Activities – the proposed visitor

accommodation activity, including the ancillary manager’s residence, is not

provided for in the Rural Zone as a permitted, controlled, restricted

discretionary or discretionary activity – Non-complying Activity;

Rule 4.4.2.1 (b) – Minimum Setback from Road Boundary – the proposed non-

residential services building exceeds 100m2 and is located 22m from the road

boundary where a 30m setback is required – Discretionary Activity;

Rule 4.4.2.9 (a) – Building Coverage – the proposal has a total building

coverage of 10.1% where 3% is the maximum permitted – Restricted

Discretionary Activity;

Rule 16.4.2.15 (a) – Parking, Loading and Manoeuvring – Car parking spaces

numbered 23-35, and the manoeuvring space that supports them, are located

within the road boundary setback – Discretionary Activity.

20. Overall, the application is classified as a Non Complying Activity, being the overriding

status of the application based on the activities for which resource consent is

required.

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

21. The proposal will give rise to a variety of effects on the receiving environment which

differ in character and degree. I consider that the AEE and s42A report address the

relevant effects associated with the proposal, including positive effects. I would like

to briefly touch on the principal effects of the proposal.

8


Permitted baseline/ Existing environment

22. As noted, earlier, the site is developed with a visitor accommodation development

within an occupancy of up to 25 guests. This activity has been legally established

and subject to several planning consents held by Council, which were included with

the application. Therefore, the activity has a permitted baseline of what has been

consented as the comparison for which to commence consideration of the effects of

this proposal against. In my view, the permitted baseline is an integral part of any

assessment of effects with respect to the proposal.

23. The s42A report addresses other permitted rural activities that could be established

on site. These activities are principally farming activities, with provision for one

principal dwelling and one secondary dwelling. The bulk and location rules (site

coverage, height, setbacks etc) set a baseline in terms of, what the PDP considers, an

appropriate scale of building(s) for a Rural Zoned site. The proposal exceeds the

maximum site coverage but is otherwise generally consistent with all other bulk and

location provisions and, with respect to height, significantly less than what is

permitted.

24. In consideration of the scale of the site and the scale of the development, I agree

with the findings of the s42A report with respect to the accepted permitted baseline

being of marginal value in terms of establishing a reasonable permitted effects

threshold from which a comparison can be drawn. The legally established activity

operating on the site is the realistic and appropriate permitted baseline to consider

effects against as this forms part of the existing environment onsite.

25. The existing environment off the site in the surrounding area is limited to permitted

rural uses, but the future land use change to a more urban zoning, as suggested by

the Waipa Growth Strategy, should, in my opinion, be taken in to account.

Rural Character, Amenity and Visual Effects

26. The s42A report includes a detailed analysis of the rural character and amenity

effects of the proposal, including a discussion of the site context and the context of

9


the wider environment, all of which make a contribution to the specific character of

this locality. The s42A report concludes that, subject to consent conditions, the rural

character, amenity and landscape effects are consistent with the surrounding

environment. In my view, this conclusion suggests that the effects of the proposal in

this regard are minor and acceptable.

27. Since the drafting of the s42A report, the Trust has engaged Boffa Miskell to prepare

a detailed landscape and visual assessment of the proposal. The assessment has

been summarised within the brief of evidence prepared by Rebecca Ryder, which has

been tabled. By way of a brief summary, Ms Ryder is satisfied that the proposal is an

appropriate use of the site, acknowledging that the site already provides for visitor

accommodation and that the site locality is not a pristine rural environment. Ms

Ryder has suggested a number of relatively subtle refinements to the layout and

configuration of the development to further mitigate the potential adverse

landscape and visual effects. These refinements include:

The reconfiguration of the large central car parking area through the use of

smaller groupings of car parks;

The expanse of paving and the use of linear edges should be reduced;

The buildings and pedestrian spaces should be better integrated with the

open greenspace which will be resolving by addressing bullet point 1;

Mature trees adjacent the entrance should be retained, where practicable;

The earth bund should gently slope up from the western and southern ends

to the apex in the north eastern corner, rather than be an abrupt, angular

formation;

The planting of the bund should comprise a hedgerow supplemented with

large scale tree planting

28. Overall, with the incorporation of the recommended refinements to the plans, Ms

Ryder is satisfied that any rural character and amenity effects will be minor and

acceptable on the surrounding environment.

10


29. The project architect, Mr Peter Chibnall, has described the design theme which has

incorporated the rural aesthetic in recognition of the site setting, and this theme is

carried through into the site layout, the scale and form of buildings, materials and

landscaping. Mr Chibnall has presented updated plans which capture some of the

changes recommended by Ms Ryder.

30. The applicant has agreed to adopt these further recommendations of a landscape

specialist to mitigate and avoid amenity and visual effects on the neighbours, so

therefore I recommend these amended plans be tabled as a substitute for the plans

submitted previously by the applicant and upon which the s42A report has been

based.

Acoustic Effects

31. The Trust’s acoustic specialist, Mr Rhys Hegley of Hegley Acoustic Consultants, has

provided expert comment on acoustic matters pertaining to the specifics noise

generating characteristics of the proposal and the effects of this noise on the

receiving environment. Overall, Mr Hegley is satisfied that the noise generated by

the facility will comply with the PDP noise limits at all notional boundaries, with the

exception of 10 Peake Road, the owners of which have submitted in support of the

proposal.

32. The s42A report concludes that noise effects from the proposal will be no more than

minor citing this conclusion is based on the expert opinion of Mr Hegley, the

endorsement of this opinion by Council’s own Environmental Health Officer and the

recommended conditions of consent. I concur with this conclusion.

33. I support the recommended noise conditions set out within the s42A report as being

appropriate mitigation of noise effects associated with this proposal. Mr Hegley, has

suggested minor changes to several noise conditions that I will note within my

summary of the draft conditions to follow.

11


Traffic Effects

34. You have heard expert evidence from the Trust’s traffic engineer, Mrs Judith

Makinson from Traffic Design Group (TDG), including a detailed description of the

roading environment, the expected additional traffic generation of the activity, the

design of access and circulation and the supply of parking. Overall, Mrs Makinson is

satisfied that the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be readily

accommodated by the roading network and that the proposed design of access and

parking is suitable for the expected users. Overall, Mrs Makinson has concluded that

the activity can be accommodated by the roading network with less than minor

adverse effects.

35. Two of Council’s Development Engineers have agreed with the opinions of Mrs

Makinson, which echo those earlier expressed within the traffic assessment

prepared by Mr Will Hyde, also of TDG, submitted with the application.

36. The s42A report has considered the collective expert opinion provided by TDG and

Council engineers and concludes that, subject to conditions, the traffic effects of the

proposal will be minor. In my opinion the appropriate conclusion with respect to the

degree of effects by consideration of the traffic experts evidence collectively, is that

the traffic effects will be less than minor.

Reverse Sensitivity

37. The s42A report provides a statement about what constitutes a reverse sensitivity

effect, as determined in case law, that I do not intend to repeat. The predominant

land use surrounding the site is small scale lifestyle farming activities and rural

residential development including the keeping and training of horses and the raising

of other dry stock, including cattle and sheep. The s42A report notes that based on

the site size and locality, it would not readily support a large scale or intensive

farming activity, a position that I agree with.

38. The development’s rural environment is a point that will be marketed as a positive

feature to potential guests. Guests will be aware of the rural setting of this

12


development and will naturally make their own decisions about whether this type of

environment - with its sights, sounds and smells - suits their requirements or not.

People that may not be attracted to such characteristics will simply chose not to stay

there.

39. As noted in the s42A report, all activities within the Rural Zone, whether permitted

or not, must comply with the PDP provisions relating to noise, dust and odours. The

PDP sets the expectation for what is reasonable in terms of effects that farming

activities may give rise to. In which case, any noise, dust or odours received at the

subject site, irrespective of the nature of the development occurring there, are

expected to be no greater than what the PDP permits.

40. Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been purposefully designed to address any

potential reverse sensitivity effects which are relevant to the site context. The units

have been clustered away from adjoining properties that support farming activities

achieving the minimum separation distances of 15m from all boundaries, a condition

that is imposed upon all residential dwellings in the Rural Zone.

41. The planted earth bund provides a physical barrier to the properties to the north and

west, which provides privacy and acoustic protection, while vegetation on the bund

will be an effective visual screen and means of controlling potential effects such as

inflow of dust into the site. This earth bund will effectively insulate the development

from the potential reverse sensitivity effects associated with the permitted rural

activities on these adjoining properties as well as containing effects generated by the

proposal within the site.

42. The s42A report concludes by stating that a “no complaints covenant” is ‘suitable

mitigation’ for the potential reverse sensitivity effects, a position that I contest. I

consider that the mitigation sought by the no complaints covenant far exceeds the

potential scale, intensity, duration and frequency of the potential reverse sensitivity

effects associated with the proposal being also specific to the site context. I consider

that the commercial use on site, beside rural uses, already has a legal right to be

13


there. Further the design and layout of the site, including specific mitigation, in

combination with PDP rules associated with retaining noise, dust and odour to a

reasonable level within one’s own site, are adequate to ensure that the potential for

reverse sensitivity effects are a negligible to minor risk.

43. For these reasons, I do not agree with or support the “no complaints covenant”

suggested in the Section 42A report. In any event, it is my understanding that such a

covenant could only require a consent holder as landowner (not third parties such as

guests) to not complain about legitimate and permitted rural activities, as you

cannot remove the legal rights of persons to challenge illegal or non-compliant

activities. To this end, such a covenant has no real meaning in the context of this

application, does not have a proper planning purpose, and seeks to impose an

unnecessary encumbrance on a legal title.

Water, Wastewater and Water Supply (Three Waters)

44. There has been no expert evidence presented today with respect to three waters

management for the proposal. For specialist comment on this matter, I have relied

on the ‘Engineering Investigation Report’, prepared by BCD Group, dated 30 June and

submitted with the land use consent application (‘BCD Report’). The BCD Report

describes the proposed three waters management to a concept level of detail.

These I have briefly described in my earlier summary of the proposal.

45. The proposed wastewater management system relies on constructing a new pipe

from the site to an existing private wastewater pipe running along the southern side

of Cambridge Road. The Trust have obtained approval of the owners of this private

line, St Peters, for this new connection. A formal agreement will be reached upon

the preparation of detailed engineering plans. Council’s Development Engineer has

confirmed that this means of wastewater management is preferable to on-site

management. Earlier discussions with Council’s Assets team, via Mr Murray James,

noted that Council’s reticulated system could accommodate the wastewater loading

of the proposal with specific management.

14


46. Overall, the three waters management measures described within the BCD Report

have been accepted by Council’s Development Engineers, in principle, as being

appropriate. Several consent conditions requiring detailed engineering plans for

water supply, stormwater and wastewater services to be provided for approval prior

to occupation of the development have been recommended. I support these

conditions as drafted.

47. Overall, based on the expert advice within the BCD Report and the endorsement of

this report by Council’s own engineers, I am satisfied that any adverse effects related

to three waters management will be less than minor, with such effects adequately

mitigated by the recommended conditions of consent.

Positive Effects

48. The s42 report provides a brief summary of the positive effects of the proposal,

specifically those highlighted by the submissions in support of the proposal. I concur

with this summary of positive effects.

Assessment of Effects Conclusion

49. Overall, the s42A report has concluded that the adverse effects of the proposal will

be minor, subject to the mitigation offered by the proposed conditions. I concur

with this conclusion, subject to some suggested changes to conditions that I will

discuss further.

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

50. The assessment of effects report and s42A report provide a detailed assessment of

the objectives and associated policies relevant to the proposal. In broad terms, I

agree with the s42A assessment insofar as it relates to the objectives and policies

relating to the strategic policy framework of the PDP, infrastructure, and

transportation. From the discussion of the Rural Zone objectives and policies, it

would seem that the main point in question is with respect to Objective 4.12.3 and

15


its associated Policy 4.12.3.1 a) which relate specifically to non-farming land uses

within the Rural Zone.

51. This objective and its associated policy is set out as follows:

Objective - Non-farming activities

4.3.12 Only non-farming activities that have a functional and compelling

requirement to locate in the Rural Zone should be enable to locate in the Rural

Zone.

Policies - Non-farming activities

4.3.12.1 To limit non-farming activities in rural areas except for activities that:

(a) Have a functional and compelling reason to establish in a rural area; and…

52. Objective 4.12.3 and Policy 4.3.12.1 a) both echo the same theme in terms of non-

farming activities requiring both a functional and compelling reason to establish in

the Rural Zone.

53. It is clear that the proposal does not involve the ‘establishment’ of a non-farming use

in a rural area because a non-farming activity, being the existing visitor

accommodation development, has already been established on site. The proposal

involves building upon this existing non-farming activity, which is an activity that is as

much a part of the character of this particular locality as the rural residential

subdivision and development that has occurred over the last 25 years. I stand by my

view that it is the established visitor accommodation activity which constitutes the

compelling reason behind the continuation of this non-farming use on this site. It is

not the need to occupy a site in the Rural zone that has driven this development, but

the desire to continue and expand this existing use.

54. In terms of the ‘functional’ requirement of Objective 4.12.3 and Policy 4.3.12.1 a), it

is my view that this ideal is satisfied by virtue of the proximity of the site to the

Avantidrome, and other St Peters sporting facilities, all of which hold sporting events

and tournaments and run activities that have already demonstrated a demand for

reasonable quality short term accommodation that is not currently being met. These

16


facilities frequently attract people to the district who require quality accommodation

and it is expected that a large proportion of guests will be directly related to events

and activities occurring within these facilities. Having interdependent activities so

close to one another is likely to reduce other effects associated with the activity

including improved transport efficiency (shared travel of groups/teams) and

potentially use of alternative modes of transport, specifically bicycles. The

accommodation has been specifically tailored to sporting groups, including cyclists,

so that it will provide for the specific needs of these user groups.

DISCUSSION OF SUBMISSIONS

55. The application was publicly notified at the request of the Trust. The decision to

notify the application was based on the desire of the Trust to get a balanced view of

the proposal with input from the wider community.

56. A total of 26 submissions were received 23 of which were in support of the

application and 3 in opposition. Of the 23 submissions in support, 4 were received

from property owners immediately adjacent the subject site. In particular, the

submissions highlight the broadly contrasting views towards the proposal of

property owners adjacent the site.

57. The s42A report and Appendix 4 provide a succinct summary of submissions

including a map specifying the locality of submitters with respect to the site. One

notable omission from the map is the location of Campbell and Margaret Watts,

owners and occupiers of 21 & 27 Peake Road directly opposite the site (west), who

have submitted in support of the proposal.

58. The 20 submissions from parties outside of the immediate environment are all in

support of the proposal. These submitters represent local business and tourism

agencies and sporting bodies, the latter providing a cross section of the target

demographic for the accommodation development. These submissions echo a

similar theme of a shortage of accommodation for visitors to Cambridge.

17


59. I wish to devote some time to a discussion of the submissions in opposition to the

proposal and to provide a response to some specific matters that have been raised

within them. The three submissions in opposition include those received from Janet

Shaw, the BR & UM Earnshaw Partnership and a joint submission on behalf of K & M

Plowman, T & K Saunders and V & K Earnshaw (the ‘joint submission’). Broadly

speaking, the joint submission addresses all of the points covered in the submissions

of Ms Shaw and the BR & UM Earnshaw Partnership, and in much greater detail, so

my discussion will focus on the content of the joint submission.

Introduction

60. The joint submission presents several contrasting outcomes with respect to the

decision sought from Council, such as that the application be declined and the

existing visitor accommodation cease, that the number of guests of the proposal be

limited to the same number of guests as the existing facility, that ‘material and

tangible’ mitigation be undertaken to counter adverse effects (eg bunding) and that,

if the proposal proceeds, that Council consider re-zoning the site and adjoining sites.

61. Council is limited in the consideration of the activity that forms the basis of the

proposal. The fate of the existing visitor accommodation activity is not balanced on

the outcome of this consent process, being protected by way of a legal consent

which has continued to be exercised.

62. The joint submission considers that bunding is a measure that will mitigate adverse

effects in a material and tangible manner, a point that I agree with. I don’t consider

that it is appropriate for Council to re-zone the site and adjacent sites in response to

this proposal. However, as the Waipa Growth Strategy is realised, it is likely that a

change in zoning to reflect the changing land use from rural to residential would

occur on a more comprehensive basis. Development within the growth cell that the

site is part of is presently anticipated to commence within 10 years.

18


Target Market

63. The joint submission, includes discussion of the ‘target market’ of the proposed

visitor accommodation and refutes claims made within resource consent application,

and supporting documentation, that the target market of the development is,

broadly speaking, sporting groups. For the avoidance of doubt, and to echo the

evidence presented by representatives of the Trust, the proposed visitor

accommodation has been designed to target sporting groups that will be expected to

represent a high proportion of bookings, as the numerous submissions from sporting

groups would suggest. The facility will also welcome casual guest bookings, as and

when available. All of the evidence you have heard today is aligned in consideration

of the primary target market and other expected guests.

Accommodation requirements

64. The joint submission includes an extensive discussion of the supply of motel

accommodation in the Waipa District and concludes this discussion by suggesting

that ‘there is no shortage of motel accommodation in the Waipa District now or

foreseeable by 2020’. The basis of this position appears to be founded in data

collated from ‘The Department of Statistics’ dated May 2016, and from information

derived from a report prepared by Property Economics (January 2015) in support of

the resource consent application cited in the joint submission.

65. Tania Witheford, of The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, has addressed this

matter through her submission. Essentially, Ms Witheford is of the opinion that

Cambridge does in fact have a shortage of quality accommodation and that the

proposal will help by contributing to local supply. In particular Ms Witheford has

noted a particular spike in accommodation demand during sporting events in the

district, a point which satisfies the Trusts objectives in terms of the user groups the

facility is targeting.

Amenity Values

66. The joint submission describes the occupants of the dwellings and the farming

activities occurring on the properties owned by the parties to the joint submission

19


and the amenities that they are concerned will be compromised by the proposal.

The weight of evidence presented today addresses the potential effects of the

proposal on the amenity of this locality.

67. In particular, the joint submission notes that each of the parties to the joint

submission use their land for the keeping and training of horses. The joint

submission raises concerns with respect to the impact that the proposal may have

on the wellbeing of the horses due to extra activity, noise, traffic and glare. Mr

Hegley has summarised some literature regarding the impact of noise on horses (and

other animals) and, in his opinion, is satisfied that the noise characteristics of the

proposal will not give rise to any unreasonable effects in this context. Glare has

already been noted as being limited to a rule in the PDP and I note the proposal will

comply with this rule. Adding to that, it is not intended that any fixed lighting be

readily visible from the adjoining properties due to its placement and screening such

that it would create any nuisance to residents or animals. The matter of headlight

sweep within the site, while specifically exempt from the provisions relating to glare

when of a short duration, has also been addressed through the incorporation of the

earth bund and boundary planting that will be subject of a landscape plan condition.

68. The joint submission notes concerns with respect to the proposal setting a precedent

for commercial development within the area. The locality already supports a variety

of non-farming uses, including the subject site. In my view the proposal sets no

precedent for further non-farming development, given the specific nature of activity

that already exists on the site and the size and locality of this rural site.

Integrated Traffic Assessment (ITA)

69. The joint submission includes critique of the ITA prepared by TDG submitted with the

application. Mrs Makinson has responded to the salient points within the joint

submission in relation to the ITA, specifically the traffic generation characteristics of

the facility, including an assessment of the facility as a standard motel, the parking

adequacy of the site, again noting parking demand from a standard motel and the

potential for additional pedestrian and cycle traffic. I will not repeat the comments

20


of Mrs Makinson in this regard. As a specialist in the field of transportation

engineering, I favour the opinions expressed by Mrs Makinson with respect to the

potential traffic effects of the proposal.

Acoustics Report

70. The joint submission also challenges the Acoustic Assessment prepared by Hegley

Acoustic Consultants, also submitted with the application. Mr Hegley has responded

within his brief of evidence and I will not repeat this material. Again, as Mr Hegley is

an expert in the field of acoustic engineering, I have relied on his expert opinion on

acoustic effects.

Lighting and Glare Effects

71. Lighting and glare has not been the focus of discussion within the AEE submitted

with the application because the proposal is not seeking any waiver from the

permitted lighting and glare provisions set out within Section 20 of the PDP. By

complying with these standards, I consider that any lighting and glare effects

generated by the proposal will be within the permitted baseline of effects in this

regard and of a degree which is reasonable. The s42A report includes conditions of

consent relating to lighting and glare and I will discuss these conditions also further

in my evidence.

Code of Conduct

72. The joint submission highlights several perceived shortcomings of the ‘Code of

Conduct’ framework that was submitted with the application. I note that this was

submitted as a generic guiding document to symbolise the Trusts commitment to

ensure that not only would the facility be designed in a manner which was

compatible with the receiving environment, but so too would the behaviour of

guests of the facility be compatible with the qualities of the locality. I accept that

the Code of Conduct would have benefitted from additional details or explanations

of the broad ‘policies’, however, I am satisfied that the ‘Centre Management Plan’

that is required to be prepared for Council approval prior to the uplift of any building

consent for the development will be far more detailed and, on this basis, a more

21


appropriate means of mitigating the effects of guest behaviour. As a condition of

consent, the implementation of the Centre Management Plan will be enforceable

under the Resource Management Act.

Risk Management

73. The joint submission suggests that a full risk assessment be prepared taking account

of a number of factors including the location of the visitor accommodation facility,

number of patrons, the target market and several other measures to address effects

of the activity on surrounding residents. I consider that all relevant RMA effects

have been addressed in the application and evidence presented today and will be

implemented through the recommended conditions of consent.

DISCUSSIONS OF CONDITIONS

74. I have reviewed the recommended conditions of consent set out within Appendix 7

to the s42A report. Generally, I agree that the proposed conditions will effectively

mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal. However, I wish to make several

comments with respect to amendments to these conditions.

75. Condition 2 states the no more than 88 persons, including staff, shall be catered for

on site at any one time. I wish to reiterate that the site also accommodates a

separate residential dwelling that forms no part of this proposal. For the avoidance

of confusion on the part of the monitoring team, I suggest the wording be amended

to the affect that the 88-person restriction applies only to the visitor accommodation

activity.

76. Condition 4 imposes a restriction on the use of the communal kitchen. Rather than

the wording ‘to be used for (sic) only by guests’, I would suggest the alternate

wording ‘to be used in a manner which is ancillary to the visitor accommodation

activity’.

22


77. Condition 6 refers to the withdrawal of ‘consent LU/0045/16’ and, while there is no

opposition to this condition, it should be noted that this reference number is an

application that is presently sitting on hold, rather than a consent which has been

issued.

78. Condition 8, in my view, reads more like an advisory note than a condition of

consent. There are detailed signage provisions in the PDP which this proposal is not

seeking to dispense with. Accordingly, I suggest that the rule is a more practical

means of addressing signage effects or, alternatively, advisory note to this affect

would be acceptable.

79. Conditions 9 and 10 address lighting that may create a nuisance beyond the site.

The standards for lighting and glare are set out under Rule 20.4.2.2 of the PDP and it

is noted that the proposal is not seeking to dispense with these rules. However, if

Council is of the mind to impose conditions in this regard, then I would like to

suggest that these are in keeping with the wording of Rule 20.4.2.2 which is as

follows:

The maximum level of light spill from artificial lighting from any activity shall be

no greater than 10 lux measured horizontally or vertically at or within the

boundary of any other site or road; and the artificial lighting shall be conducted

so that direct or indirect illumination does not create a nuisance to occupants of

adjoining or nearby sites, provided that the following activities are exempt:

(a) Street lights, navigation lights and traffic signals; and

(b) Headlights of moving vehicles or vehicles which are stationary for less than

five minutes; and

(c) In the Rural Zone, lighting or glare from vehicles being used for farming

activities and agricultural equipment.

80. I support the approach within Condition 10 that a Council officer be charged with

determining whether lighting constitutes a ‘nuisance’. I consider there is also merit

23


to the inclusion of an additional condition requiring the preparation of a lighting plan

to be submitted for approval by Council prior to lighting installation.

81. Condition 11 addresses the requirements of a landscape plan to be submitted for

approval prior to the issue of building consent. I would like to clarify the wording of

subsection b) which currently suggests that all plants be no less than 1m at time of

planting and that all plants along the perimeters of the site shall be no less than 2m

in height, presumably also intended to be at time of planting. The expectation is

that landscaping proposed for the site will comprise a myriad of functions, from

screening to amenity planting around buildings. I appreciate some discretion will be

exercised on the part of Council with respect to this planting but I would like to

suggest the following alternate wording which I consider addresses what this

condition is looking to achieve:

b) All plants that are for the express purpose of providing visual screening of the

development, as opposed to general amenity planting around buildings, shall

be spaced as close as possible to one another, taking account of the specific

growth habit of the particular species. Such plants shall be no less than 2m

high at time of planting.

82. Condition 12 addresses the timing of planting. It is common practise that the timing

of planting coincide with the ‘planting season’ (generally the 1st of April to 30th of

September), which provides the best environmental conditions for plant

establishment. I would like to suggest that this wording be included in this condition

to the affect that planting be completed within the next planting season following

the completion of construction.

83. Condition 16 suggests imposition of a no-complaints covenant understood to be

intended to protect the rural activities occurring within 6 adjacent properties,

including properties owned by parties that have submitted in support of the

proposal.

24


84. A covenant of this nature is usually offered by an applicant to address concerns from

a significant and regionally or nationally recognised land use (e.g.

National/International Airports) that has been identified as needing protection from

new and likely conflicting land use activities coming into an area (e.g. residential

greenfield development). This is not applicable in this case. This condition is

considered inappropriate and unreasonable, for the reason set out in Paragraph 42

above and, in my opinion, should be deleted.

85. Mr Hegley, in his evidence, has suggested some changes to the wording of

Conditions 13, 14 and 15. I will not repeat those suggested changes here, but I will

simply say that I agree with those suggested changes.

CONCLUSIONS

86. Overall having reviewed this proposal against the Proposed Waipa District Plan

Objectives and Policies I have formed the view that this proposal satisfies these in

their entirety.

87. With respect to actual or potential adverse environmental effects that arise in

relation to the proposal, in my opinion these effects will be minor in extent and

acceptable within the context of the existing site use and surrounding environment.

88. Overall, in my opinion, consent should be granted to this proposal subject to the

imposition of the conditions as recommended by Council’s reporting planner and

subject to the suggested changes set out within my statement of evidence.

in the matter of - waipa district council · in the matter of: the resource management act 1991....

Documents