monte cecilia school : decision final

8/6/2019 Monte Cecilia School : Decision FINAL

1/25

1

Report and Decisions on Submissions to, and on, Proposed Plan Modification 274 to theAuckland City Operative District Plan 1999 (Isthmus Section): 317 Hillsborough Road and34 Whitmore Road, Hillsborough, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland

Report to: Auckland Council

From: The Hearings Panel:

Alan Watson (chair)Karyn SinclairHarry Bhana

Date: 6 July 2011

Group File: 314/209274

1.0 SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

The decisions are that Plan Modification 274 to the Auckland City Operative District Plan 1999(Isthmus Section) is approved with modifications and that the submissions are accepted,accepted in part or rejected in accordance with that decision. The decisions are made pursuantto Clauses 29 and 10 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act orRMA) respectively.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

This decisions report addresses Proposed Plan Modification 274 (the plan change) to theAuckland City Council District Plan 1999: Isthmus Section (District Plan). The plan change isa request for a private plan change by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland(the applicant) at the Catholic Parish of St John Vianney and the adjacent property (physicaladdresses 317 Hillsborough Road, Mt Roskill, and 34 Whitmore Road collectively referred toas the site or the application site in this decisions report).

In 2010 the former Auckland City Council and the Catholic Diocese entered into an agreementunder the Public Works Act 1981, to provide for acquisition by the then City Council of theexisting Monte Cecilia school site at 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough.

The intent is to build a new school for the current Monte Cecilia School at the application site.To achieve this intent the plan change seeks to:

rezone the site from Residential 6a (Medium Intensity Residential) to SpecialPurpose 2 (Education);

amend some of the provisions applying to the Special Purpose 2 zone to moreappropriately provide for sites with a dual use for education and religiouspurposes; and

apply a Concept Plan to the site to provide for the comprehensive and integrateddevelopment of the land.


2/25

2

The total area of land subject to the plan change is approximately 2.6 hectares. It is locatedapproximately 1.5km to the south of State Highway 20 - sitting along the northern side of theridge occupied by Hillsborough Road.

Deborah Rowe, a consultant planner, prepared a report on the plan change and thesubmissions for the Auckland Council (the Council) in accordance with Section 42A of theRMA, hereinafter referred to as the Section 42A report. The Section 42A report was preparedprior to the hearing and it included input from other Council specialists. That specialist inputwas in respect of arboriculture, acoustics, site contamination, earthworks/geotechnical, ecology,stormwater, transport and urban design. Ms Rowe recommended that the plan change beapproved, with some modifications, and that submissions in support or in opposition to the planchange be decided accordingly in line with that recommendation.

The Hearings Panel of Commissioners (Commissioners) have had regard to that report; to theplan change, including the Section 32 RMA report with it; to the written submissions received;and to the submissions and evidence presented at the hearing in making these decisions on theplan change and the submissions to it. The Commissioners also visited the site and the locality.

As stated, the decision is to approve the proposed plan change with modifications and, in linewith that decision to accept, accept in part or reject the submissions to it.

3.0 INITIAL COMMENT

We believe that we need to say at the outset that this was a hearings process filled with emotionand during which we received comments from submitters opposing the plan change that we arenot able to factor into the decisions we are to make under the RMA. We do acknowledge thedeep concerns of submitters in some of these respects who, for various reasons, do not wish tosee the existing Monte Cecilia school closed and a future school opened at the application site.However, it is important that there is a clear understanding regarding what we can consider andwhat our role is.

Our role is to assess the plan change, and the submissions to it, under the RMA and in doing soto particularly consider the suitability of the site for the proposed zoning and zone provisions toaccommodate a future school. Accordingly, and as raised by the applicant1, matters that weheard that are not relevant are:

Details of the Memorandum of Understanding and Public Works Act agreement betweenthe applicant and the Council;

Details of the existing Monte Cecilia school site and its buildings and whether it could berearranged on that site;

Details of the decile ratings of other schools in the locality of the site, whether parents inthe locality would choose to use the future school, affordability of school fees anddemographics of the local population.

In all of these respects we note that the Minister of Education has granted written approval tothe relocation of the Monte Cecilia school to the application site with a roll of 227 pupils with arestricted intake of non-Catholics.

1 Reply submission from Michael Savage, pages 3, 4.


3/25

3

We will therefore not be commenting further on these various matters in this decisions report.

4.0 THE HEARING

The hearing was held at the Council Hearings Committee Room at the Auckland central officesof the Council in Greys Avenue, Auckland on 23, 24, 26 and 27 May 2011. The presentationshad not been completed late on the Friday afternoon of 27 May 2011 so the hearing wasadjourned so that the right of reply from the applicant could be received in writing. That wasreceived on 9 June 2011. The Commissioners met on 22 June 2011, the delay in meetingbeing because the chair was out of NZ for part of that intervening period, to consider whetherthe right of reply needed to be presented at a reconvened hearing. The Commissioners were ofthe view that they had all the information needed to make the decisions on the plan change andthe submissions and closed the hearing that day. Those in attendance during the hearing were:

Applicant: Michael Savage, Legal CounselBishop Patrick Dunn

Sister Katrina BrillFather James MulliganGraeme Scott Registered ArchitectJason Hogan, Landscape ArchitectTodd Langwell, Traffic EngineerKeith Ballagh, Acoustics EngineerKeren Bennett, EcologistMalcolm Stapleton, Civil and Geotechnical EngineerBruce McCabe, Environmental ConsultantIain McManus, Planning Consultant.

Submitters: Friends of Oakley Creek represented by Wendy John, Chairperson

Wayne HoustonDouglas MacLeod, also for Wayne Lunjevich and Marie DempseyClaire BarryRoger ShearerAnthony BonischWilliam DuncanMonte Cecilia Board of Trustees represented by Michael Jamieson,Deputy ChairmanMichael Jamieson as an individualFriends of Monte Incorporated represented by Anthony Bonisch, MichaelJamieson, Wes Edwards, Traffic Engineer and Bob Demler, PlanningConsultant with these representatives also being for Chris Scahill, Ingrid

Sharp, Pauline OFlaherty, Brian Lewis, Jane Gogarty, and Simon andSimone Hertnon.Anne Nicholson, also for Susan Mulrennan, David Morris, Maree Raffles,Edward Raffles and Anthony Raffles.

Council Officers: Deborah Rowe, Reporting PlannerPravin Dayaram, Traffic EngineerNicola Williams, Urban DesignerChristian Vossart, Acoustics Consultant


4/25

4

Lakshmi Nair, Stormwater EngineerRebecca Stanley Natural Heritage Specialist (not in attendance)Joshua Ong, Committee Secretary Hearings.

5.0 THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The main part of the site at 317 Hillsborough Road is currently occupied by the St John VianneyCatholic Parish and has been developed with a church, a separate parish centre and apresbytery (residence for the parish priests). That part of the site at 34 Whitmore Road iscurrently occupied by a single residential dwelling. The land to the south of 34 Whitmore Roadis used for pedestrian access to the Parish land.

The existing vehicle access to the site is from Hillsborough Road via a two lane driveway andadjacent footpath. This access has a gradient of approximately 1 in 7. Pedestrian access is alsoavailable from Whitmore Road south of 34 Whitmore Road.

Parking is provided for 110 vehicles on the sealed area around the church and leading to theparish centre, and parking for approximately 30 additional cars is available on the grassed areato the immediate north of the church. The remainder of the site is predominantly in grass with

scattered pockets of low vegetation. An intermittent watercourse traverses through the northernportion of the site.

The site is surrounded by reasonably low intensity residential development to the north alongFlorence Daly Place; to the south along Whitmore Road and Hillsborough Road; to the eastalong Hillsborough Road; and to the west along Whitmore Road.

The site is identified on Council records with an additional limitation being H05-04 AirportApproach Height control, and portions of the site (along the western edge and approximatelyalong the main watercourse) are identified as being subject to flood risk.

The legal description of the site is, for the Hillsborough Road part, Lot 15, DP 43427 on C.T.NA1321/82 and for the Whitmore Road part, Lot 178 DP 44204 on C.T. 13C/958.

6.0 THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SITE

The site is currently zoned Residential 6a in the District Plan. That zone provides for mediumintensity residential development. It is described in the District Plan as a zone which is intendedto provide for a wider range of activities than is permitted in the lower intensity residential zones,while also achieving a reasonable level of amenity. The objective of the Residential 6a zone isto provide for medium intensity residential neighbourhoods in appropriate locations. TheResidential 6 zone is the most widespread residential zone on the Isthmus.

The District Plan maps indicate that there are no individually scheduled trees, archaeologicalfeatures, geological features, or heritage sites on or adjacent to the site. However, there are 15trees or groups of trees that are protected under the General Tree Protection rules of theDistrict Plan that are located within the plan change area.

7.0 THE PROPOSED ZONING AS PART OF THE PLAN CHANGE REQUEST

The applicant seeks to rezone the subject site from Residential 6a to Special Purpose 2(Education). The Special Purpose 2 zone is applied to the majority of the schools within theIsthmus part of Auckland City (inclusive of 18 other Catholic parish and school sites). It


5/25

5

recognises the primary value of facilities located within it as places of education and research,and that these facilities have additional community value as a location for a range of communityuses not necessarily associated with their primary educational or research function.

In addition to rezoning the site, the applicant wishes to amend the objectives, policies and otherprovisions applying to the Special Purpose 2 zone to better recognise and provide for the parishactivities currently taking place on the site and on the 18 other Catholic parish and school sitesalready zoned Special Purpose 2.

Furthermore, the applicant wishes to apply a Concept Plan to the site to provide for the longterm and integrated use and development of the site. Further details on the proposed SpecialPurpose 2 (Education) zone are set out in in the next section of this decisions report.

8.0 THE PLAN CHANGE DETAILS

8.1 Special Purpose 2 Provision Amendment

The plan change seeks to add an objective and three additional policies which will apply to siteswith a dual function of providing for educational and religious purposes. The additional objective

and policies are as follows:Objective

To provide for the efficient use and development of sites which have a dual function foreducation and religious purposes, while ensuring that any adverse effects are avoided ormitigated.

Policies

By providing for places of assembly where sites have a dual use for educationaland religious purposes.

By adopting controls which seek to protect the privacy and amenity ofsurrounding residentially zoned sites.

By permitting parking to be shared between site activities where peak use doesnot coincide.

Minor consequential amendments are also proposed to the zone description, zone strategy,expected outcomes, rules and assessment criteria to similarly recognise that some of the siteswithin the zone have a dual function of providing for educational and religious activities.

8.2 The Concept Plan

The Concept Plan consists of five parts:

1. Activities

2. Development controls

3. Applications for resource consent

4. Criteria for assessing restricted discretionary activities

5. Concept diagram.

These components are described in more detail below.

8.2.1 Activities


6/25

6

The activities on the subject site are divided by the Concept Plan into three categories;permitted activities, restricted discretionary activities, and discretionary activities. The ConceptPlan provides for a range of permitted activities, with a focus on residential, community, andeducational uses.

The following are specified in the Concept Plan as restricted discretionary activities: The construction of Replacement Works defined under the Public Works Act

agreement with Council, or any part of the Replacement Works;2

Use of outdoor artificial lighting producing an illuminance in excess of 150 luxmeasured at any point on the site in a horizontal or vertical plane at ground level;and

Any activity not complying with the specified development controls.

8.2.2 Development controls

In addition to the controls within Parts 4A, 5C, 5D, 11, and 12 of the District Plan (except whereamended below), the Concept Plan outlines the following summarised development controls:

Building Location - All buildings shall be contained within the building platformsidentified on the Concept Plan diagram.

Maximum Building Coverage - Building Platform A - 50% (5,869m2); BuildingPlatform B -25% (510m2); Building Platform C - 35% (742m2).

Maximum Height

Building Platform A - RL 78.0;

Building Platform B - RL 76.0;

Building Platform C - RL 82.0;

elsewhere - 8 metres above the finished ground levels following completion ofthe preparatory site works undertaken as part of the Public Works Actagreement with Council.

Maximum Building Height in Relation to Boundary- No part of any building shallproject above a 45 degree recession plane measured from any point 2 metresabove the ground level along any boundary of the site.

Retaining Walls various height and orientation restrictions are applicable.

Activity Buffers various landscape elements are required in order to provide anappropriate level of amenity along the Whitmore Road frontage of the site andappropriate buffers to the adjoining residential properties.

Noise Construction and operational noise limits are outlined. Additionally,acoustic fencing is required.

2 The Replacement Works are the works to replace the existing Monte Cecilia school with a school with the same

number of pupils (227).


7/25

7

Parking A minimum of 95 permanently formed and marked parking spacesshall be provided. Additional parking may be required subject to provisions 8b d.

Vehicle Access Up to three vehicle crossings are permitted for the site.Hillsborough Road access is permitted to be reconstructed, widened or otherwise

altered to a maximum gradient of 1 in 7.8.2.3 Applications for resource consent

This section of the Concept Plan stipulates the information to be provided and notification /assessment processes required for restricted discretionary activities, namely the ReplacementWorks.

8.2.4 Criteria for assessing restricted discretionary activities

This section of the Concept Plan sets out the assessment criteria to be used when assessingresource consent applications for:

The construction of Replacement Works;

Outdoor artificial lighting producing an illuminance in excess of 150 lux at groundlevel; and

Development control modifications.

8.2.5 Notification and assessment of restricted discretionary activities

This section deals with the procedures for notification of restricted discretionary activities andprovides that any application for construction of the Replacement Works or any element thereofshall be considered without the need for notification, written approval, or service of notice onaffected persons.

8.2.6 The concept diagram

The Concept Diagram outlines the extent of Building Platforms A, B, C as well as various othercontrols and requirements.

9.0 THE SUBMISSIONS

The plan change was notified on 18 October 2010 with the closing dates for submissions andfurther submissions respectively being 15 November and 17 December 2010. One hundredand seventy five submissions were received and five further submissions.

The decisions sought by the submitters generally fall into five groups, as set out below.

1. Decline the plan change (161)

2. Decline, or accept with amendments (2)

3. Accept with amendments (2)

4. Accept the plan change (8)

5. No decision sought stated (2).


8/25

8

Pursuant to Clause 10(1) of the First Schedule of the RMA, these five categories or groups willbe used for the decisions on the submissions. We discuss the submissions below underheadings that reflect the issues raised by the submitters.

Eleven of the submissions, all from Chris Scahill, were received by the Council on 16 November2011, one day after the closing date for submissions. We note that the submissions, which

oppose the proposed plan change, follow a standardised approach and are the same as othersubmissions received in time. We resolved to accept the late submissions as below:

Pursuant to Sections 37 and 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991, the time periodfor accepting submissions is extended by 1 day in order to receive the late submissions by ChrisScahill as valid submissions for the reasons that the submissions raise no issues that are nototherwise raised in other submissions, are only one day late and in our opinion that extensionwill not directly affect the interests of any persons. We have otherwise given regard to theinterests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal andour duty under Section 21 of the RMA to avoid unreasonable delay.

10.0 STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Section 74 of the RMA sets out the matters to be considered by a territorial authority inpreparing or changing its district plan. These matters include doing so in accordance with itsfunctions under Section 31, the provisions of Part 2 and its duty under Section 32. Further, alsohaving regard to other documents, including regional planning documents, management plansand strategies prepared under other Acts and iwi planning documents.

Section 75 of the RMA, in addressing the contents of district plans, requires that a district planmust give effect to any national policy statement, any NZ Coastal Policy Statement any regionalpolicy statement and must not be inconsistent with a regional plan.

Section 31 addresses the functions of territorial authorities under the RMA and includes:

(a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods toachieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection ofland and associated natural and physical resources of the district;

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection ofland,

Section 32 RMA provides for the consideration of alternatives, benefits, and costs and requiresthat an evaluation must be carried out and that the evaluation must examine:

(a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of

this Act; and(b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other

methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

For the purposes of this examination, an evaluation must take into account the benefits andcosts of policies, rules, or other methods.

Part 2 of the RMA, being the purpose and principles of the statute, is the overarching part of theRMA. Regard is to be given to all matters within it.


9/25

9

Clause 29 of the First Schedule states that after considering a plan change a local authority maydecline, approve or approve with modifications that plan change and shall give reasons for itsdecision. Clause 10 of the First Schedule states a local authority must give a decision on theprovisions and matters raised in the submissions and must include the reasons for accepting orrejecting any submissions. In doing so a local authority may address the submissions by

grouping them according to the provisions of the plan change to which they relate or the mattersto which they relate and, may include matters relating to any consequential alterationsnecessary to the plan change arising from the submissions. A local authority is not required togive a decision that addresses each submission individually.

11.0 THE PANELS CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ISSUESRAISED BY SUBMITTERS

11.1 The Concept Plan

In our considerations of the rezoning of the site for the purposes of a school we have found the

proposed Concept Plan has some distinct shortcomings.

The applicant advanced an Indicative Development Plan (IDP) as an example of the schooldevelopment that could result from the Concept Plan. The applicant stated it was necessary todevelop the IDP in order to satisfy itself that the desired school arrangement could be providedfor upon the site including the various aspects of it such as buildings, car parking and access,and sports facilities. We have similarly found that the IDP is a sound means for ourconsiderations.

However, application of the Concept Plan sought to be included in the District Plan by the planchange does not guarantee that the form of development shown on the IDP will follow. Thatwas readily pointed out by the applicant. That produces a difficulty for us insofar as we have

found that development enabled by the Concept Plan could potentially result in greater adverseeffects within the neighbourhood and on the environment than was indicated by the IDP. Wehave concluded that before we were able to include the applicants proposed Concept Plan inthe District Plan, we would want to provide some additional restrictions in it. Otherwise we findthat it would be too general for the purposes of inclusion in the District Plan. The particulardifficulties include:

If the proposed large building close to the south west boundary of the site is developedto a greater degree than is shown on the IDP then there could be associated greateradverse effects on the residential properties that lie to the west of it. The BuildingPlatform A controls in the Concept Plan do not provide a limitation on the specificlocation of that building and there is a relatively generous floor area provided for that

platform.

Within Building Platform B there is an allowance of 2,040sqm for Buildings used forRecreation or Educational Facilities with a building coverage of 25% and developmentcontrols relating to height. Although the IDP sees that area being developed for groundlevel recreational facilities there is no assessment for future buildings on that platform inrelation to the residential properties that lie to the west of it, other than the application ofthe development controls.


10/25

10

On Building Platform C the Concept Plan provides for 2,120sqm of building developmentover 35% of the platform although no development, other than the existing presbytery, isshown on the IDP. We received no satisfactory response to questions to the applicantabout the extent of residential development that may be planned for that platform otherthan the possibility of two residential units required for the Parish Priest and formerParish Priest. The building form/size and the particular nature of the residential activity

that may take place upon that building platform are sufficiently undefined for us to beconcerned about the potential for adverse effects on the environment.

In order for the car parking provided on the site to be sufficient for the purposesintended, and to provide for access to it, the vehicle access along the south westboundary of the site, as shown on the IDP is needed. That however, is not specificallyprovided for on the Concept Plan meaning that we cannot be satisfied that sufficient carparking can be arranged upon the site. We acknowledge the development controlrequiring 95 car parks on the site but we are asked now to determine the suitability of thesite for a school and the on-site car parking is a significant factor in that currentassessment.

We are not satisfied that the levels of development enabled by the Concept Plan are able to beadequately assessed given the traffic constraints and proximity of residential neighbours. Oncethe Replacement Works have a consent, development of a school for up to 400 pupils couldfollow without the need for further resource consents. Under Development Controls - 8Parking (b) there is a trigger that requires a resource consent in the event that the schoolexpands to a level where the parking requirements for a school under Part 12 of the DistrictPlan exceeds the number (95) of parks on the site. However Part 12 sets the parking rate forschools as 2 per classroom so the school would need to expand beyond 47 classrooms beforethat came into effect. We consider that the effects of traffic at the Hillsborough Road accessand adequacy of parking for a school of 400 pupils plus the effects of dominance andshadowing on properties to the south and southwest have not been adequately assessed. It isreadily apparent that it will be difficult to provide a greater number of car parks on the site than

proposed for the Replacement Works (95). One of the issues is that the IDP has been used asan illustration of the likely form of development but is not included in the plan change provisions.To an extent the assessment criteria 1(a) provides for some architectural guidelines but will notsufficiently limit bulk and associated effects.

In these respects it is our finding that the IDP needs to form part of the plan change in order thatthe applicants assessment of effects on the environment, and our similar assessment, results inthe range of environmental effects that we have anticipated from our considerations of it. If thatIDP is to change in any material manner, then the adverse effects that we have considered maybe different and in that case we believe any components that are changed need to bespecifically considered. We conclude that the Concept Plan provides for developmentconsiderably in excess of the IDP. The Concept Plan is also too simplistic, we believe, for

inclusion in the District Plan without some accompanying more defined indication of theresultant development from it.

We see the need for the IDP to form part of the plan change and any material change in buildingdisposition or other details from those shown on the IDP to require further assessment by wayof a discretionary activity application.

We have given close consideration of the details provided on the IDP and find that the site issuitable for rezoning to provide for the Replacement Works, if the works are in conformity with


11/25

11

the IDP. However, and as we raised during the course of the hearing, we are concerned thatany other form of school or educational activities should be subject to the closer scrutiny ofdiscretionary activity applications if such are advanced at a future time. As discussedthroughout this decisions report there are limitations on the use of this site for school purposes.Those limitations can be satisfactorily addressed in the context of the Replacement Works butneed to be specifically addressed in the context of any additional development envisaged for the

site. The limitations we refer to include:

The ability to provide sufficient car parking on the site;

The limitations on vehicle exit to Hillsborough Road;

The traffic generation of any school facilities greater than the Replacement Works;

The potential impacts of different locations for buildings and greater building bulk uponthe site upon neighbouring residential properties.

For these reasons, as otherwise discussed in this decisions report, the Concept Plan provisionsneed to be changed to provide only for the Replacement Works as a restricted discretionaryactivity with the construction of any educational facilities prior to or instead of the ReplacementWorks and further, any educational facilities, being listed as discretionary activities.

The above amendments to the Concept Plan, being the inclusion of the IDP and the change tothe activity status for other educational facilities, means that we, and submitters with concerns inrelation to these matters, can have a confidence that the site can be used for the ReplacementWorks in the manner shown on the IDP with any material changes to that IDP or othereducational or associated facilities receiving further consideration on the basis of a discretionaryactivity application. We find from all our considerations of this plan change application that is areasonable balance to be struck in relation to it.

11.2 Traffic Generation

The applicant confirmed during the hearing that the majority of the parish activities will continue

to operate outside of school hours to ensure that for the majority of the year the trafficgeneration and parking considerations for the school can be considered separately and/orcomplementary to the parish activities. We accept that funerals held during the day will not bein accord with this separation but we do not expect that the additional activity in the area, orthe incidence of on-street car parking during the day, for a short time, will be any more than aminor adverse effect.

11.3 Hillsborough Road Access

The existing access from Hillsborough Road is well established and there are no significantopportunities for upgrading it due to its narrow road frontage. The limited visibility for driversexiting the site from this access was noted by all the traffic experts providing input to the

proceedings relating to the application. Todd Langwell stated in his evidence that the sitedistances available were very limited and fall well below the guideline he referred to in hisevidence. Although he noted there is no recently recorded crash history to suggest a safetyproblem, he said that it is difficult turn right from the site onto Hillsborough Road and that mostmotorists appear to avoid turning right where possible. He recommended, on the basis of anincrease in vehicle movements from the site for the school activity, that the right turn movementbe prohibited from the site at this access point during the school peak times. Mr Langwellpointed out there is no evidence to suggest that the same restriction should apply outside of


12/25

12

these times and the church activities should be able to continue to function as they presentlydo.3

This concern had also been highlighted in the Traffic Report from Mr Langwell included with theapplication and in the input to the Section 42A report by Pippa Mitchell. Ms Mitchellrecommended that during the week the Hillsborough Road access should only be for teachers

and people attending parish activities. That is, no pupil drop-off or pick-up is to be permitted offHillsborough Road, with the availability of the Whitmore Road car park area for dropping off andpicking up children providing a viable alternative to assist in enforcing this measure. She sawthis restriction being given effect to by the installation of appropriate signage, implementation ofmanagement techniques and the provision of removable bollards to prevent vehicle movementthrough the site during the week days. Ms Mitchells recommended that a mechanism beincluded in the Concept Plan requiring these arrangements.

We note that the Concept Plan text provides for the consideration of this matter of right turnsmovements from the site onto Hillsborough Road as one of the listed assessment criteria, andenables the Council to impose conditions in relation to the use of vehicle crossings to the extentnecessary to achieve the outcomes referred to in the assessment criteria. Ms Rowe reported

that she was of the view that the current provisions of the Concept Plan are satisfactory torequire detailed assessment and inclusion of consent conditions as necessary to address thismatter.

We find this is a fundamental issue to be addressed in relation to determining the suitability ofthe site for school purposes. There does need to be a restriction on no right turns out of theHillsborough Road access by school traffic during peak (drop-off and pick-up) school times (aspart of development control relating to Vehicle Access) rather than it being left as anassessment criterion and further, that all drop-off and pick-up be at the Whitmore Road accessin order that peak time activity can be satisfactorily managed by the school. We have modifiedthe Concept Plan accordingly.

11.4 Through-Site Access

The IDP shows essentially two car parking areas, one immediately alongside the WhitmoreRoad access and another larger area to the south of the site which can be expected to beaccessed from Hillsborough Road. The IDP shows the two car parking areas connected by avehicle access that will run along the south west edge of the site.

The assessment criteria in the Concept Plan include a criterion that enables the Council toconsider whether adequate measures are proposed to discourage excessive and unnecessaryuse of the vehicle link between Hillsborough and Whitmore Roads. This is presumably to avoidit being used as a through-site link. To support this view the Councils reporting traffic engineer(Ms Mitchell) recommended that this link be physically closed during the week between the

hours of 6am to 6pm with it opened at other times at the discretion of the school and/or parish.Ms Mitchell sought that be included in the Concept Plan. In the Section 42A report Ms Rowesaw this detail as more appropriately being imposed at the resource consent stage rather thanbeing imposed within the Concept Plan. She considered that the framework of provisions withinthe Concept Plan would enable the Council to consider this matter at the resource consentstage and to impose conditions accordingly, subject to a slight amendment to one of theconditions that may be imposed to include the word useso that it reads:

3 Evidence of Todd Langwell, paras 63 to 66 incl.


13/25

13

The layout, design and use of vehicle parking and circulation areas..

Mr Langwell saw a restriction on the use of the link between 6am and 6pm as being a veryblanketcontrol and agreed with the approach of Ms Rowe.4

We are of the view that it is essential to allow access to all of the car parking areas on the site inorder that the on-site car parking is fully utilised for the school and other activities on the site.We are also mindful of the desire to discourage excessive and unnecessary use of the vehiclelink between Hillsborough Road and Whitmore Road and in this respect acknowledge that, attimes, there will be a need to prevent such access by way of a chain or similar across a part ofthe vehicle access. That may be more appropriate at a point close to the southern pedestrianentry to the proposed school buildings rather than further to the north west along the vehicleaccess in order that potentially a further 33 car parks (in addition to the 30 car parks offWhitmore Road) are available for school purposes. This is particularly important as part ofensuring the Whitmore Road access is fully utilised by parents for drop-off and pick-up of pupilsfor the school.

We find that the opportunity to close the vehicle link through the site is required and that needsto be balanced against ensuring satisfactory provision of car parking on the site for schoolpurposes. That can be achieved by way of amendments to the wording of the assessmentcriteria relating to this matter to read:

Adequate measures are proposed to discourage use of the vehicle link between Hillsboroughand Whitmore Roads by parents of pupils at the school. In particular, those measures toinclude the closing of that vehicle link at appropriate times, such times and the precise point forthat closure to be arranged so that the maximum amount of car parking is available for schoolrelated purposes.

11.5 Whitmore Road Access

The information from the applicant was that the church and parish related activities wouldlargely continue to operate from the Hillsborough Road access and the new school wouldoperate from the Whitmore Road access. That would allow each to have a defined entranceand ensure that the car parking and associated drop-off/pick-up area for pupils off WhitmoreRoad can be efficiently managed by the school.

Mr Langwell pointed out in evidence that it would be important to prohibit on street parkingwithin the vicinity of the access point to Whitmore Road at certain times to ensure suitable sightlines and commented that is normal at school access points. Whilst yet to be confirmed, theaccess options for Whitmore Road are likely, we were informed, to take the form of two vehicleaccess points providing separate entry and exit movements which assist in minimising conflicts

between exiting and entering vehicles and maximises circulation within the site during the higherintensity school peak times.5 We find that is a sensible arrangement which can readily bemanaged at peak drop-off and pick-up times by the school. It is the manner that is oftenarranged at other schools to ensure the optimum use of the available space and that it is carriedout in a safe manner. It is the case that with the same people dropping off and picking upchildren each day that such management is more easily achieved.

4 Ibid, paras 156, 157.5 Ibid, paras 68 to 70 incl.


14/25

14

Mr Langwell stated that Whitmore Road is expected to see an increase in week-day traffic flowsthat during peak times are predicted to double. He stated that needs to be seen in the contextthat the existing flows for the street are low and, although they may appear significant as apercentage, are relatively minor in the context of the spare capacity within the street. He saidthe carriageway width along Whitmore Road is typically about 9m wide which is sufficient to

accommodate two-way flow provided there is not too much parking on both sides of the road.His observations at various times of the day suggested that the occurrence of parking is notsignificant and long sections of Whitmore Road are clear of parking and it is not common to seecars parked directly opposite each other. Mr Langwell did however point out that there could betimes when parked cars would disrupt traffic flow with that being exacerbated during a schoolpeak time when the number of vehicle movements in the street will increase. He noted howeverthat the school peak periods will occur for about 30 minutes twice a day on school days onlyand for the rest of the time moderate to low flows similar to existing flows in the street will occur.Mr Langwell recommended banning parking on one side of Whitmore Road either permanentlyor on school days in those areas where congestion may occur, such as near the schoolentrance to reduce any risk of congestion.6

Ms Mitchell recommended that a Traffic Management Plan be developed to direct/control thedrop-off/pick-up operation with such a Plan including instructions to parents as to how this couldmost efficiently be operated.

We find that there would be some inconvenience associated with more noise and potentialcongestion around relatively short periods of the day and further, that restrictions on car parkingwould be necessary on-street. We do not find these effects to be of significance in traffic termsand for those effects to be capable of mitigation with some restrictions on on-street car parking.Such restrictions are unlikely to significantly inconvenience local residents. We acknowledgethat whilst these traffic effects can be addressed there is a residual amenity related effect interms of the greater activity at certain times of the day and the need for parking restrictions onthe street. However, we do not find these effects to be significant enough to require us to reject

the Replacement Works upon the site with access to and from Whitmore Road.

The Concept Plan requires, as part of the information to be provided, the construction of a carpark and pick up/drop off zone with vehicle access to and from Whitmore Road. Theassessment criteria include the Council having to be satisfied that vehicle access and parkingareas will provide for safe and efficient vehicle circulation on-site so that the potential foradverse effects on the roading network is minimised. These provisions will provide for thesematters to be satisfactorily addressed.

11.6 Traffic Effects on the Wider Road Network

There was comprehensive information included in the application and we also received expert

evidence on behalf of both the applicant and submitters that addressed the traffic effects of theproposal on the wider road network, that is, beyond the immediate access points to theapplication site and the site neighbourhood. We are satisfied that the proposal will not createany adverse effects of concern in these respects, including the impact on the capacity of theroads and road intersections.

11.7 Car Parking

6 Ibid paras 83 to 91.


15/25

15

The Concept Plan requires, as a development control, a minimum of 95 car parking spaces onsite as part of the Replacement Works (227 pupils). Mr Langwell was of the view that will bemore than sufficient to meet any peak parking demands when the school is first established andto ensure any parking for the activities does not impact on the surrounding road network. Hehad arranged for a parking survey to be carried out at the existing Monte Cecilia School during

peak traffic periods which indicated the peak demand for parking reached 48 and 51 cars duringthe am and pm periods respectively. That was based on a school role at the time of 173 pupils.Extrapolating that demand to a role of 230 pupils produces a peak parking demand of 64 and 68spaces respectively when the proposed school would be first established. This is well within theproposed provision of parking of 95 spaces. He also extrapolated those results to a school roleof 400 pupils, based on 78% of pupils arriving or leaving by car. That resulted in a car parkingdemand of 91 and 96 parking spaces which again is acceptable given the minimum of 95spaces to be provided on the site.

Wes Edwards, providing traffic evidence on behalf of the Friends of Monte Cecilia School, wasof the view that the proposed parking provision was inadequate with respect to the number ofspaces provided and with respect to the location and arrangement of the parking areas. He

also undertook a survey of vehicle movements and parking demand at the existing MonteCecilia School during the afternoon peak and observed that the peak number of vehicles on thesite was calculated to be 65. This number could easily vary by 10% he said, depending on theexact arrival or departure time of each vehicle. His calculated likely parking demand for asimilar school of 400 pupils was 118 car park spaces based on the applicants survey or 150spaces based on his own survey. He was of the view that travel behaviour of the schoolindicated that 95% of pupils travel by car. Mr Edwards concluded that to ensure the parkingsupply able to be provided on the site is sufficient, the maximum roll of the school should berestricted to 215 pupils.7

We find that the car parking to be provided on the site will be sufficient for the purposes of theReplacement Works. Both traffic engineers (Messrs Edwards and Langwell) confirmed this

would be the case. We note the differences in the calculations between the respective trafficengineers and in this respect which does serve to highlight a concern regarding how the on-sitecar parking would be arranged for a larger number of pupils upon this site. That in itself is oneof the reasons we have decided that any school facilities beyond the Replacement Works wouldrequire discretionary activity consideration. Such an application for a larger number of pupilswould most likely be following the establishment of the Replacement Works at which time therewould be better data to base projections upon in respect of car parking demands.

In commenting on the car parking as above, we note, as was accepted by the parties to the planchange, that the school and church and parish centre activities will not often coincide such thatany demand for on-street car parking is not expected to occur. It was highlighted to us thatthere will be regular funerals conducted from the church which would see a greater demand for

car parking but if that did mean there was some overflow of car parking demand to the localroading network we do not see that as being an adverse effect of any great consequence.

11.8 School Travel Plan

7 Evidence of Wes Edwards, paras 35 to 50 incl.


16/25

16

The preparation of school travel plans is an accepted part of schools in urban areas. Theintention is to reduce the level of vehicle trip generation and therefore reduce the impacts on thelocal road network.

Ms Mitchell recommended an addition to the list of conditions that may be imposed on theReplacement Works to give effect to the provision of a school travel plan, that requiring the

school to commence with the investigations, development and implementation of a school travelplan together with the Auckland Transport School Travel Plan Co-ordinator. We agree, andhave included such a condition in the modified plan change.

11.9 Bus Access and Manoeuvring

The evidence from the applicant was that buses would only be required at the site for thepurposes of school trips or similar and are not expected to be used for the regular transportingof children to and from the school. The IDP shows that if it was necessary a bus would be ableto park in the entry isle off Whitmore Road to the site but this would have to be managed by theschool in order that it did not conflict with the car parking on that part of the site. The applicantdid provide a tracking curve indicating that in a managed situation a bus could enter and leave

the site.

We find that any arrangements for buses can satisfactorily be dealt with as part of theconsideration of a resource consent given that one of the assessment criteria requires theCouncil to be satisfied that the Whitmore Road access facilitates entry, exit and movementthrough the car park by buses.

11.10 Effects on Residential Amenity

The development of the site for a school will have amenity effects which, apart from beingassessed in absolute terms, should be assessed relative to the development of the site for 40 to50 houses in accordance with its current zoning.

The concerns raised by submitters included visual, sun and light, privacy and noise.

The key effects in these respects relate to the properties located to the south and south west ofthe site and particularly potential over-shadowing of those properties. The properties to thenorth and east of the site are generally elevated in relation to the site and are unlikely thereforeto experience some of the amenity effects that may be of concern. The Concept Plan hasprovisions relating to building height and height in relation to boundary and, at least on the IDP,the focus of buildings is towards the centre and southern side of the site. These will serve toensure that any effects of shading, dominance and privacy on adjacent properties from buildingswill be avoided. Further, provided those effects are satisfactorily addressed, we do not believethat school buildings and grounds generate adverse effects in terms of visual amenity.

The retaining walls have the potential to contribute to shading or a sense of dominance over theproperties which adjoin them and in this respect the Concept Plan sets out a series ofassociated requirements that include limiting the extent of exposed face of the walls, requiringcompliance with the height in relation to boundary controls and dense planting between thewalls and adjacent residential boundaries. The Concept Plan includes an associatedassessment criterion to specifically address this potential adverse effect and there is alreadysubstantial vegetation screening on the south western boundary of the site. All fencing issimilarly required to comply with the applicable height and height in relation to boundary controls


17/25

17

which again will serve to limit the height of fencing and any associated effects on adjoiningresidential properties.

We are reasonably satisfied that those Concept Plan provisions will serve to avoid or sufficientlymitigate any residential amenity effects of an adverse nature, with our residual concern beingthe properties to the south and south west of the site. We remain concerned about the potential

shading although we acknowledge the height, height in relation to boundary and controls on theretaining walls are directed at limiting any such shadowing effects. However, the difference insite levels together with the undefined location of buildings close to these boundaries meansthere is potential for adverse impacts in these respects unless carefully assessed as part of afuture RDA application with regard to the assessment criteria included in the Concept Plan.

We conclude that the Concept Plan provisions are sufficient to address the range of effects onresidential amenity in ensuring that there are no adverse effects of significance in this respectand subject to our above views regarding the IDP being part of the plan change.

11.11 Arboricultural

There are thirty six trees identified as being Generally Protected on the site of which ninewould require removal to facilitate the proposed works. Other trees may need to be pruned orspecifically protected to facilitate the project works. Although the General Tree protection rulesin the District Plan will cease to have legal effect for trees in urban environments by January2012, as a result of recent amendments to the RMA, the application site is greater than the sitesize included in that amendment such that any tree which is generally protected will remain soafter that date. This means such trees will require separate resource consent prior to anyremoval from the site.

We form the view from all the information and our visits to the site that any loss of trees orvegetation will be suitably compensated for by application of the landscape planting provisionsincluded in the Concept Plan.

11.12 Noise

The Concept Plan includes noise provisions specific to the site and in relation to activitiesclassified as operational activities; special day events; or, special evening events. The specialday events and special evening events are limited to twelve events each per year. The noiseprovisions also include the provision of acoustic fencing on or adjacent to the Residential zoneboundaries of the site as part of the Replacement Works.

The noise situation has been the subject of a report prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics withthe application which was reviewed for the Council by Christian Vossart, Acoustics Engineer.These considerations indicate that the development of a school at the site will result in an

increase in noise levels when compared to those currently generated from it but that mostactivities will emit noise within the levels anticipated within a residential area. Those activitieswhich are expected to generate noise levels in excess of these normal residential limits aresome outdoor school activities associated with day-to-day school operations; specialschool/parish/community events; and, use of the car park area before the early Sunday Massand after the Christmas Eve Mass. There would also be some increase in noise levelsassociated with the increased traffic on Whitmore Road.

We heard evidence from Keith Ballagh of Marshall Day and find agreement with him insofar as:


18/25

18

Schools are an expected integral part of residential environments and while noise fromchildrens recreation can at times exceed Residential zoned noise limits, childrens playis a normal residential activity and there is general community acceptance of suchactivity. In accordance with the Special Purpose 2 (Education) zoning sought, the noiselimits which apply to this site would exempt noise from normal school recreation activity

between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm. Noise from normal school recreation activities is generally expected to be less than 50

dBA L10 on adjacent residential sites but noise levels might on rare occasions exceed 55dBA L10 at some houses on the northern boundary which are two stories and elevatedabove the school site. This would be infrequent and for short periods and the nature ofthe noise is generally accepted by the community.

Some relaxation of the zone noise limits is provided for a limited number of specialevents.

Noise from other sources of school activity including car parking is expected to easilycomply with normal residential noise limits.

We are satisfied the Concept Plan has appropriate provisions in relation to noise such that any

adverse effects generated by noise from the proposed uses of the site will be minor.

11.13 Site Contamination

We received comprehensive evidence from Bruce McCabe, Environmental Consultant, onbehalf of the applicant. He said a limited number of potentially minor sources of landcontamination were identified at the site which included the possible use of pesticides as part ofnormal pasture maintenance when the land was farmed; a small area of what appears to beimported fill near the centre of the site to the north of the existing church; and, probablepesticide use at a community garden to the north and west of the existing hall.

We acknowledge the specialist information provided by Dr McCabe although were most

interested with his observations that this identified contamination would pose negligible potentialhealth risks to children who may attend the school or any resident of the property providingproduce grown in the soil is not consumed. He made specific reference to his understandingthat vegetables would not be grown at the proposed school for human consumption. Thatconsideration was in relation to a small area of land within the Presbytery grounds containing anelevated soil arsenic concentration. We note on the Concept Plan that is an area for potentialfuture residential development and we would wish to ensure that there was absolutely nopotential health risk associated with this identified contamination on the site. It was apparentfrom the evidence that such contamination effects are manageable but, in order to addressconcerns of submitters and ourselves, we have referenced the requirement for an application toremediate contaminated land under Rule 5E.7.4.1 of the District Plan. We consider that this willenable all aspects of the safety of those using the site to be addressed within an appropriate

technical evaluation of the extent and nature of remediation measures that are required.

11.14 Earthworks/Geotechnical

The redevelopment of the site will require substantial earthworks to form the playing fields,parking, and hard court areas, as well as the building platforms. Such redevelopment works arenot unusual in the context of Auckland with its variable topography. Information included withthe application, supported by the evidence of Malcolm Stapleton, Civil Engineer, indicated that


19/25

19

the site is stable and suitable for the proposed development and indeed the proposed worksshould improve the overall stability of the site. This information, that was reviewed by PaulSalter, Consultant Engineer for the Council, was that the earthworks can be suitably managedby way of controls routinely imposed by way of earthworks consents conditions in order toprovide appropriate and adequate controls on the temporary effects. We note that resourceconsents are required under regional planning documents for earthworks prior to the

development of the site.

11.15 Stormwater and Flooding

The site is located in the Oakley Creek catchment which has downstream flooding problemssuch that a number of flood retention structures have, or are being developed within thecatchment. In this case the applicant acknowledges the downstream limitations and that thesite will need to be developed in a way that does not increase the loading on the publicstormwater system, which can be achieved through the provision of on-site stormwaterdetention measures. Treatment of stormwater from the car parking and sealed areas on the siteis proposed by way of filters with all details of detention and treatment being confirmed at thedetailed/engineering approval stage.

The application details were supported in evidence by Mr Stapleton and had been reviewed byLakshmi Nair, Stormwater Consent Engineer for the Council. Ms Nair, along with somesubmitters, noted that the applicant identified a hard engineering measure for stormwatermanagement with the use of detention tanks. However, alternative stormwater treatments,being referred to as soft engineering options, such as an at source approach to the reuse andattenuation of stormwater including rain water tanks are recommended by the Council to assistin achieving sustainable re-use of the water resource and reducing the load on the publicstormwater system and reducing contaminant/sediment loading on the receiving environment.Wendy John, who appeared as Chairperson of Friends of Oakley Creek expressed a similarpreference for soft engineering options. We acknowledge and agree with some of the pointsmade by Ms John in these respects along with the advice of the reporting planner that reference

should be made in the plan change to low impact design measures. We observe that amodified Concept Plan attached to Mr Savages right of reply, included in the assessmentcriteria, reference to incorporating low impact design (LID) measures in the overall stormwatermanagement plan and we have accepted that amendment.

11.16 Ecology

The applicant had provided a report prepared by Bioresearches noting that redevelopment ofthe site is expected to require the piping of the water course crossing the northern part of thesite and either the modification or piping of the water course extending along part of the northwest boundary of the site. These intermittent streams are able to be modified as a permittedactivity under the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. The water courses

are not capable of supporting aquatic life and do not support any riparian vegetation and aretherefore of limited ecological value. The impact of modification of these water courses will beminor.

Rebecca Stanley reviewed the details for the Council and concurred with the applicant althoughshe did state it would be preferable if the proposed development of the site did not modify thewater courses on the site.


20/25

20

We heard further from Keren Bennett of Bioresearches in evidence that the minor ecologicaleffects are manageable given the stormwater control and treatment measures required to be putin place under the comprehensive stormwater catchment consent. She did not expect it to leadto any additional scouring, flooding, or contamination of the Oakley Creek. We agree.

11.17 Urban Design

The urban design aspects of the proposal were detailed in evidence from Graeme Scott whohighlighted the provisions included in the Concept Plan, particularly under the assessmentcriteria, to address urban design issues that will see the best design solution for the site. Someadditions have been made to those criteria in line with the review of the application material byNicola Williams, Councils Urban Designer, relating to the need to avoid blank building facadesfacing the Whitmore Road car park area and to ensure that adequate provision is made forunimpeded access into and around the site by users who may have impeded mobility.

We find that the expert input by Mr Scott, along with the review by Ms Williams, satisfactorilyaddresses the urban design issues associated with the future school development on the siteand will result in a built environment that meets up to date urban design aspirations.

11.18 Wastewater

The evidence of Mr Stapleton was that the school would not overload the system provided thatupgrades were carried out by Watercare in two downstream locations where wastewatercapacity does not meet current design standards. This situation could be assisted, as pointedout in the application details, with peak loading use of the sanitary system deriving from theschool occurring at times other than when the peak load occurs on the current system. Theproposed development was not therefore expected to add to these stressed sections of theexisting systems.

The Watercare representative who was present at part of the hearing acknowledged the

responsibility it had for upgrading the system to remove the current limitations to the wastewatercapacity where it does not meet current design standards.

We find this is a design detail that can be readily accommodated.

11.19 Construction Effects

We accept the information with the application and the evidence that the earthworks andconstruction phases, and the associated effects of noise, traffic and sediment/dust, can besatisfactorily managed in the normal manner through a Construction Traffic Management Plan,a Construction Noise Management Plan, and controls on sediment and dust emission which willbe required by the Council as part of future applications for these works. These measures are

appropriate and commensurate with similar scale projects occurring elsewhere in the district.

11.20 Positive Effects

The submitters understandably focussed on potential adverse effects of the plan change. Asdescribed however in the application, evidence and the Section 42A report, there are positiveeffects particularly associated with a new school in this area; the ability of neighbourhoodfamilies to use the playground and fields outside of school hours; and, an improved outlook foroccupants of the houses along the north to north east edges of the site compared to the


21/25

21

development which would occur in terms of the Residential zoning of the site. The applicationof the Concept Plan will see an attractive development of the site providing a balance betweenbuilt form and open space along with a more efficient use of this urban land resource.

11.21 Sections 31, 32, 74 and 75 RMA

11.21.1 National Policy Statements

There are no national policy statements to be taken account of in this case.

11.21.2 NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS)

This is relevant because the stormwater from the site drains via the Oakley Creek to theWaitemata Harbour and because there is potential for adverse effects on ecology, scouringflooding and contamination of the creek from the development provided for by the plan change.

We have dealt with those issues above. We find that the plan change is consistent with the

NZCPS, particularly given the measures to be included as part of the plan change provisionsand there will also be future consideration as part of the applications to the Council for regionalconsents.

11.21.3 Auckland Regional Statutory Documents

The following are relevant to the consideration of the plan change:

Auckland Regional Policy Statement 1999 (RPS),

Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land & Water 2001

Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001.

The RPS provides an overview of resource management issues for the region and includes

relevant provisions regarding managing the use, development and protection of the natural andphysical resources of the region. The District Plan must give effect to any regional policystatement. A key focus of the RPS is on managing growth within the region and containing thisgrowth within existing urban areas. It also outlines a requirement for the efficient delivery ofinfrastructure and services to support growth in the region, as well as a need to protect thequality of the environment.

The regional overview and strategic direction contained in the RPS acknowledges that urbandevelopment can threaten environmental quality and includes a number of strategic objectivesand policies seeking to address this issue. Policy 2.6.1.2(vi) states that urban developmentshall maintain and enhance amenity values within the existing urban area, and policy2.6.1.2(vii), that development shall avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the

environment. Plan Change 6 to the RPS, based on the Local Government (Auckland)Amendment Act 2004, further reinforces the focus on managing growth by providing for it withinexisting urban areas and seeking to achieve better integration of land use and transportplanning.

We find that the plan change is consistent with the RPS because it enables the provision of acommunity facility in a manner which avoids and/or mitigates adverse effects on the surroundingenvironment, and is located within the metropolitan urban limits.


22/25

22

The development of the site may require regional council consents in relation to the regionalplans relating to air, land and water and to sediment control. Future applications would beassessed against those Plans. We did not receive any evidence to suggest that such consentswould not be able to be obtained.

11.21.4 The District Plan

The Section 74 RMA matters to be considered by a territorial authority when changing its districtplan do not specifically require regard to the given to the District Plan. However, we wouldexpect any proposed plan change to be reasonably consistent with the provisions included in anoperative district plan inasmuch as it did not conflict with other provisions.

We note that the District Plan has objectives that seek to:

protect the districts resources from significant adverse effects of activities anddevelopment;

protect and enhance residential amenities; encourage the wide use and provision of education, health, recreation and

community resources and facilities.

We find that the plan change adequately manages adverse effects and it specifically providesfor community resources. The plan change is also structured to fit with the existing provisionsof the District Plan without significantly changing the planning approach of the District Plan, asindicated by the objectives and policies and rule provisions.

Section 10.5.1.1 of the District Plan sets out the matters that the Council shall consider whenevaluating a request to rezone land to Special Purpose 1 or 2:

Consider the Concept Plan against the objectives and policies for the zone;

Whether the location is suitable;

Whether the site is suitable; and

Whether the proposed development is suitable.

We find that the plan change is consistent with those matters in the District Plan. Ourconsideration of the plan change is that it is entirely consistent with the District Plan.

It is appropriate at this point to address the proposed amendments to the existing District Planprovisions for the Special Purpose 2 zone. These were discussed in the evidence of IainMcManus8 for the applicant and Robert Demler,9 for the Friends of Monte Inc. We accept theproposed amendments to add an objective and three policies as part of the plan change. Theseare supported by the application and details provided in support of it. It is also sought through

8 Evidence of Iain McManus, paras 28 to 30.9 Evidence of Robert Demler, para13.


23/25

23

the plan change to make minor consequential amendments to the zone statement, zonestrategy, expected outcomes, rules and assessment criteria. These proposals are shown in theapplication details.10

We agree with Mr Demler that some are more than minor or consequential and are notappropriately made as part of this plan change because they go beyond the ambit of the plan

change.

11.21.5 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA)

This is relevant because the stormwater from the site drains via the Oakley Creek to theWaitemata Harbour and hence to the Hauraki Gulf. There is potential for adverse effects onecology, scouring flooding and contamination of the creek from the development provided for bythe plan change which could potentially impact on the Gulf.

We have dealt with those issues above. We find that the plan change is consistent with theHGMPA, particularly given the measures to be included as part of the plan change provisionsand there will also be future consideration as part of the applications to the Council for regional

consents.

11.21.6 Section 31 RMA

The Section 31 RMA functions include requiring the control of any actual or potential effects ofthe use, development, or protection of land. The range of actual or potential effects arising fromthe plan change has been addressed in the plan change documentation and in the Section 42Areport.

We are satisfied that all actual and potential adverse effects associated with the plan changehave been taken into account.

11.21.7 Section 32 RMA

The plan change documentation includes a comprehensive Section 32 evaluation ofalternatives, costs and benefits related to the plan change. The evaluation concludes that theplan change is the most appropriate approach.11

Section 32(2)(a) requires that a local authority must undertake a further evaluation underSection 32 prior to making a decision on a private plan change request. This evaluation isincluded in the Section 42A report where the reporting planner has considered relevant caselaw, that being Eldamos Investments Ltd v Gisborne District Council 22/5/05 ENC WellingtonW047/2005and Long Bay-Okura Great Park Soc Inc v North Shore CC EnvC A078/08.12

We accept the analysis provided with the application and the further analysis provided byDeborah Rowe in the Section 42A report In particular (subject to the modifications that we havedescribed above) we agree with Ms Rowes conclusion that:

10 Assessment of Effects on the Environment and Section 32 Analysis by Civitas, July 2010, appendix 3.11 Ibid, section 7.4.12 Section 42A report, section 8.3.


24/25

24

the plan change has been designed to accord with and assist the territorial authority tocarry out its functions so as to achieve the purpose of the RMA;

that the proposed objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of theRMA:

that the proposed policies are the most appropriate way to achieve the objective ratherthan maintaining the status quo;

that the proposed rules are the most appropriate way to achieve the objective;

that there is sufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules andother methods proposed, and that this is not a situation where significant considerationneeds to be given to the risk of acting or not acting; and

that the proposed rules will assist the Council to carry out its function of control of actualor potential effects of the use, development or protection of land.

We find that the Section 32 evaluations satisfy this section of the RMA.

11.21.8 Purpose and Principles Part 2 RMA

The proposed rezoning of the site involves the natural and physical resources of the land andexisting buildings which the applicant seeks to use for both educational and religious purposes.This is consistent with the sustainable management purpose of the RMA in enabling people andthe community to provide for their social wellbeing while sustaining the potential of thoseresources to meet the reasonably foreseeable growth needs of future generations for both theschool and parish, while successfully integrating two compatible uses. We have found that theplan change will avoid and/or sufficiently mitigate any adverse effects of the proposal on theenvironment and in this respect highlight the modifications we have made to the Concept Plan,many of which reflect the concerns raised by submitters.

There are no matters of national importance that are directly relevant to the plan change. Interms of Section 7 RMA considerations, the use of the site for the co-location of the school andits related parish activities is an efficient use and development of the site. The proposal will seesome positive effects on the amenity values and the quality of the environment along withpotential adverse effects which we have considered above. On balance we find that the planchange will contribute positively to the amenity values and quality of the environment.

There were no issues relating to Maori that were brought to our attention and we were advisedthat the relevant Iwi had been included in the notification of the plan change. We accordinglyfind that there are no associated matters in relation to Sections 6, 7 or 8 of the RMA that we

need to take into account.

We find, in all the circumstances, that the plan change is consistent with the purpose andprinciples of the RMA.

12.0 DECISIONS


25/25

25

That pursuant to Clauses 29 and 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act1991,

a) Proposed Plan Change 274 to the Auckland to the Auckland City Council DistrictPlan 1999: Isthmus Section is APPROVED with modifications;

b) The submissions that support the proposed plan change are ACCEPTED inaccordance with a) above to the extent that modifications have been made to theproposed plan change;

c) The submissions that oppose the proposed plan change are REJECTED inaccordance with a) above although it should be noted that modifications havebeen made to the proposed plan change;

d) The further submissions are ACCEPTED OR REJECTED in line with the abovedecisions on the primary submissions;

all for the reasons set out above in this decisions report.

13.0 PLAN AMENDMENTS

The Auckland City Operative District Plan Isthmus Section is therefore amended as ProposedPlan Modification 274 was notified with the plan change and modifications shown on theattachments to this decisions report.

Alan Watson, Chair of the Hearings Panel, on behalf of Karyn Sinclair, Harry Bhana and AlanWatson.

6 July 2011

Attachments:

A. Plan change 274 as provided by the applicant at the end of the hearing, incorporatingmodifications by the applicant in response to submitters concerns.

B. Plan change 274 as approved with the modifications from the version presented by theapplicant at the end of the hearing shown in tracked form.

C. Plan change 274 as modified and approved (untracked).

D. The Concept Plan diagram.

E. The Indicative Development Plan.