plaza properties limited residential development – 583

PLAZA PROPERTIES LIMITED

Residential Development – 583, 585 & 587-589

New North Road, Kingsland

Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of

Environmental Effects

Date: May 2021

Ref: 4112.03

Plaza Properties Limited May 2021 583, 585 & 587-589 New North Road, Kingsland 4112.03

BLAKEY PLANNING LIMITED Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDS 2

3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3

3.1 OVERVIEW 3

3.2 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING 5

3.3 DRAWINGS 5

3.4 LANDSCAPING AND TREES 6

3.5 ACCESS AND PARKING 7

3.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT 7

3.7 ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE 9

3.7.1 Infrastructure 9

3.7.2 Earthworks 10

3.7.3 Geotechnical 12

3.8 SITE CONTAMINATION 13

4.0 REASONS FOR CONSENT 14

4.1 INTRODUCTION 14

4.2 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN (OPERATIVE IN PART) 14

4.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD (CONTAMINATED SITES) 17

4.4 OVERALL ACTIVTY STATUS 17

5.0 SECTION 88 17

6.0 NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT 18

6.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 18

6.1.1 Introduction 18

6.1.2 Public Notification Exclusions 18

6.1.3 Public Notification Exclusions 18

6.1.4 Where Public Notification is Required 19

6.1.5 Assessment in accordance with s95D 20

6.1.6 Assessment of Effects 23

6.1.7 Special Circumstances 39

6.1.8 Conclusion – Public Notification 40

6.2 LIMITED NOTIFICATION 40


6.2.2 Limited Notification Required or Excluded 40

6.2.3 Adverse Effects and Affected Persons 41

6.2.4 Special Circumstances 44

6.3 NON-NOTIFICATION 44

7.0 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT 44


BLAKEY PLANNING LIMITED Page ii

7.1 INTRODUCTION 44

7.2 SECTION 104(1)(a) - ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS 45


7.2.2 Positive Effects 46

7.3 SECTION 104(1)(b) - ASSESSMENT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS 46

7.3.1 National Environmental Standards 46

7.3.2 National Policy Statements 46

7.3.3 Regional Policy Statement 47

7.3.4 Auckland Unitary Plan – Objectives and Policies 48

7.3.5 Auckland Unitary Plan – Matters of Discretion 53

7.4 SECTION 104(1)(c) - OTHER MATTERS 55

7.5 SECTION 104C – RESTRICTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY 55

7.6 SECTIONS 108 & 108AA – CONDITIONS 55

7.7 SECTION 125 – CONSENT EXPIRY 56

7.8 PART 2 – PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE RMA 56

8.0 CONCLUSION 57

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Location Map

FIGURE 2 Adjacent Properties

ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1 Records of Title

ANNEXURE 2 Aerial and Site Photographs

ANNEXURE 3 Site Survey Plan

ANNEXURE 4 Plaza Properties – Examples

ANNEXURE 4A Proposed Rules – Communal Area

ANNEXURE 4B Acoustic Assessment (Pool Noise)

ANNEXURE 5 Pre-application Consenting Memo

ANNEXURE 6 Architectural Drawings

ANNEXURE 7 Landscape Concept Plan

ANNEXURE 7A Arboricultural Assessment

ANNEXURE 7B Tree Asset Owner Approval

ANNEXURE 8 Traffic Impact Assessment

ANNEXURE 8A Additional Traffic Assessment


BLAKEY PLANNING LIMITED Page iii

ANNEXURE 8B Further Traffic Comment – 25 May 2021

ANNEXURE 9 Waste Management Plan

ANNEXURE 10 Engineering and Infrastructure Report

ANNEXURES 10A–E Engineering Report Attachments

ANNEXURE 10F Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment

ANNEXURE 10G Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment – Addendum 25

May 2021

ANNEXURE 11 Geotechnical Assessment Report

ANNEXURE 11A Additional Assessment - Groundwater

ANNEXURE 12 Contamination Assessment Report

ANNEXURE 13 Site Management Plan (Ground Contamination)

ANNEXURE 14 Development at 841-845 New North Road


BLAKEY PLANNING LIMITED Page iv

ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD

Project No. 4112.03

Status REVISION B

File Name 4112.03 583-587 New North Road/AEE_583-587 New North Rd_May 2021_Rev B.docx

Date of Issue 25 May 2021

Prepared by

Richard Blakey (BPlan, MNZPI)

Consultant Planner | Director

LIMITATIONS

This Assessment of Environmental Effects report has been prepared for the project at 583, 585 & 587-589 New North Road, Kingsland, for the purposes of a resource consent application (land use, regional and NESCS) and in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. No responsibility is accepted by Blakey Planning Limited or its director for the use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose. This report is for use by Plaza Properties Limited and the Auckland Council only and should not be used or relied upon by any other person or for any other project. Note: This report incorporates matters set out in a s92 RMA response to the Council dated 13 May 2021.


BLAKEY PLANNING LIMITED Page 1

1.0 THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS

Site Address: 583, 585 & 587-589 New North Road

Kingsland

AUCKLAND 1021

Name of Applicant: Plaza Properties Limited

Address for Service: Plaza Properties Limited

c/- Richard Blakey, Blakey Planning Limited

By Email: [email protected]

Mob: 021 619 677

Address for Fees & Charges: Plaza Properties Limited

Attn: Erik Jorgensen

By Email: [email protected]

Legal Descriptions: 583 New North Road: Lot 18 BLK 2 DP 171

585 New North Road: Lot 19 DP 171

587-589 New North Road: Lot 20 DP 171

Record of Title no’s: 583 New North Road: NA164/147

585 New North Road: NA355/211

587-589 New North Road: NA312/189

refer Annexure 1

Site Area: 583 New North Road: 769m2

585 New North Road: 792m2

587-589 New North Road: 814m2

Total = 2,375m2

Operative Plan: Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part (2016)

Zone: Residential – Terrace Housing and

Apartment Buildings Zone

Overlays: N/a

Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index

(Urban)

See Figure 1 below:



Figure 1: Zoning Map (Auckland Unitary Plan)

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDS

The application site is comprised of three separate properties, 583, 585 & 587-589 New

North Road, Kingsland. The sites are freehold properties of 769m2, 792m2 and 814m2

(total 2,375m2) and will be held together for the purposes of this application and are

hereafter referred to as “the Site”.

As shown in the locality plan above, the Site is located on the northern side of New North

Road, and in close proximity to the intersection with Western Springs Road to the

immediate west. The Site is bounded to the west and north west by the School Reserve

and playground, to the south by New North Road and to the east by residential

development at 581 New North Road.

The Site is generally level across its frontage with New North Road, with the ground level

sloping from approximately RL 48m at its south-western corner, adjacent to New North

Road, down to approximately RL 38.5m in the north-eastern corner of the Site on an

overall grade of approximately 1V:7.6H (7.5 degrees) and which gives the Site a natural

northerly aspect. The head of a gully is present in the north-eastern corner of the Site

which continues across to First Avenue to the north. The land north of the dwellings

consists of overgrown vegetation with trees along the northern boundary, including one

large Flame tree which will be removed.

Site



The Site is occupied by two buildings, at 587-589 New North Road, comprised of an art

exhibition room which is positioned at the road frontage. The building is of concrete/

brick construction with an unpainted corrugated metal roof. A tenanted residential

dwelling (villa) is located at the rear, being of timber weatherboard construction with an

unpainted corrugated metal roof. Two other dwellings at 583 and 585 New North Road

have been recently demolished, noting that the dwelling at 583 was badly fire damaged

on 19 February 2019.

Historical aerial photographs sourced from the Auckland Council GIS Map Viewer indicate

that the buildings/dwellings at 583 and 587 New North Road had been built prior to the

1940s. The dwelling at 585 New North Road had been constructed sometime between

1940 and 1956.

The Site and its surrounding environment and context are depicted in the aerial and site

photographs attached as Annexure 2. The aerial photographs are from the Council’s GIS

Viewer and depict the dwellings on the Site as of 2017. The Site photographs were taken

in January 2021 (Images 1 – 12) and March 2021 (Images 13 – 16).

A site survey plan (prepared by Harrison Grierson Consultants Ltd) is also attached (as

Annexure 3) and defines the various features of the Site as described above. The site

survey plan includes the position of various trees in and around the Site, including the

truck of a large Flame tree that is located primarily within the Site.

From a transportation perspective, it is noted that the Site currently has four vehicle

crossings to New North Road. This road has a carriageway width of approximately 14m

which provides two lanes in each direction, separated by a painted flush median. Traffic

counts in August 2019 indicate that New North Road accommodates some 15,300 traffic

movements on a typical weekday. A clearway lane operates between 7am and 9am

Monday to Friday in the eastbound direction and 4pm to 6pm in the westbound direction.

Outside of the clearway hours, unrestricted on-street parking is available other than a

length of ‘No Stopping At All Times’ parking restrictions between Western Springs Road

and a point outside 585 New North Road.

There are no restrictions on the records of title for the Site that would affect the proposal

described in this application.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 OVERVIEW

The applicant, Plaza Properties Limited (“Plaza”), has been in operation for a number of

years in Auckland, specialising in the high end of the market in some of Auckland’s most

sought-after suburbs. Plaza has a proven track record for delivering a quality residence

within a variety of large and small projects, utilising quality finishes and applying

attention to detail. A few of the successful Plaza projects include:



519 Remuera Road, Remuera

Prestige on Pupuke – 75-83 Anzac Avenue, Takapuna

Belgravia Apartments – 2 Hiriri Avenue, Remuera

The Seddon – 706 Manukau Road, Royal Oak

The Beach & Cavalli – 64 Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay

These projects are depicted in the illustrations attached as Annexure 4.

Plaza seeks all necessary consents to construct a residential development on the Site,

comprised of 67 apartments (41 x one-bedroom and 26 x two-bedroom) arranged within

a tiered apartment building of five accommodation levels oriented to its frontage with

New North Road and extending part way down the Site towards the north. The apartments

are arranged along a north-south central corridor on each floor, with living areas on the

side apartments angled so that they are oriented to either the north-west or north-east.

The new building will be accessed via an accessway that runs along the eastern boundary

(utilising the location of an existing vehicle crossing to New North Road) and leads to a

basement carpark floor (Level B1) accommodating space for 43 vehicles. A bike storage

area is also provided at the Site frontage providing direct access for cyclists to New North

Road.

Separate pedestrian accesses will be provided to the development, directly to the lobby

and residents’ entry and to the communal areas to the rear of the building, which includes

additional storage space (locker rooms) as well as a residents’ lounge, north-facing

amenity area and swimming pool. The pool area will be screened by a 1.4m frameless

glass fence for safety and acoustic privacy, and the mechanical plant serving the pool will

be located at the western end of the pool area.

These communal areas will be operated in accordance with strict body corporate rules to

maintain the comfort of residents and neighbours, in a similar manner to those used

successfully at Prestige on Pupuke. The pool ‘season’ will be from November to March,

with opening hours of 7am – 9pm. The proposed rules are attached as Annexure 4A.

The pool area will be inset from the boundary (which will be fenced) and will itself be

screened by a 1.5m-high glass balustrade, with an opaque finish.

The applicant has also investigated the operational aspects of the pool from a compliance

perspective. A further report by Earcon Acoustics titled ‘Acoustics – Pool Noise’ has been

prepared and demonstrates that compliance the relevant AUP standards will be achieved

in respect of adjacent residential property boundaries. The acoustic assessment is

attached as Annexure 4B.



3.2 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING

A pre-application meeting was held at Council offices on 18 December 2020. This was

based on initial draft plans and reports for the proposal. The preliminary view on the

outcome and process was set out in the Council’s Pre-Application Consenting Memo

(reference PRR00036054, refer Annexure 5). This was generally supportive of the

proposal, noting some recommendations which are noted and adopted as set out in the

following sections of this report.

3.3 DRAWINGS

The plans for the development have been prepared by Formis Limited, dated 4 May 2021.

These incorporate site and floor plans, elevations (including materials schedule), detailed

sections, shading diagrams, 3D depictions and perspectives.

The plans are attached as Annexure 6.

In terms of the recommendations set out in the Pre-application Memo, the following

amendments have been incorporated into the final drawings:

A 3D illustration of the building, incorporating the proposed height

infringements, has been prepared, with views from the north.

Only the ‘rolling height’ method has been adopted, as the difference between

this method and the ‘average height’ method exceeds 2m.

The incorporation of opaque glazing behind the metal balustrade for those

apartments on the north-eastern corner for Levels 1 – 3 (i.e., Units 113, 213 and

313).

Waste storage facilities are depicted on the floor plans.

Driveway gradients, parking heights and manoeuvring dimensions are depicted

on the floor and elevation plans.

Boundary treatments have been specified through the architectural plans and

landscape plans.

The access design and wayfinding strategy has been amended in order to indicate

a clear and legible main access from the street. This utilises one lobby entrance

that connects to all units with access control, along with a visitor waiting area

and mail room. A separate residents’ access is smaller in scale and indented from

the façade so as to ensure the lobby access is the more prominent for visitors.

The sightlines along the pedestrian lane to the communal open space at the rear

has been amended so that this is separated from the vehicle access, and a

combination of elevation change (slope) and screening is expected to minimise

privacy issues for Unit G-01.

Window shutters have been specified for the ground level unit for those windows

facing the street (Unit G-14) to minimise potential privacy issues from the

footpath.



The study rooms in each unit that do not have external glazing have been

amended so that they have no door, to ensure these are not used as bedrooms.

Sheet A4701 also provides details of the interior elevation of the kitchen wall and

details the glazing proposed, as well as confirming that “all study rooms to be

mechanically ventilated as per NZBC G4”.

The plans also depict the height to boundary plane as an arc from the south-western

corner of 76 First Avenue (Sheets A1307, A1308, A2003 and A6951).

Interior images demonstrating the quality of the interior fitout have been included with

Annexure 6.

3.4 LANDSCAPING AND TREES

A Landscape Concept Plan has been prepared by Helen Mellsop Landscape Architect and

is attached as Annexure 7. This includes a mix of specimen trees, hedges and ground

cover for landscape areas, as well as a landscape scheme and associated informal path

for the garden area to the rear of the Site. The front yard is planted with three Columnar

oaks and three Dragon trees to complement the vertical emphasis of the building

frontage.

The Pre-application Memo noted the variety of landscaping around the Site and the

communal spaces at the rear of the building, and that this is “considered to be positive

addition to further enhance the quality of space”. The plan has been amended to provide

additional detail with respect to boundary treatments, particularly the interface to School

Reserve on the western boundary.

It is noted that the Flame trees at the lower part of the Site are proposed to be removed,

as these trees are not compatible with the pool and outdoor amenity area, as they would

constantly drop debris into it, especially in autumn. Flame trees are also a recognised

weed tree in New Zealand. The larger of these has been subject to survey, which shows it

to be primarily (approximately 80%) to be within the Site, such that its removal is a

permitted activity (albeit that it may be subject to separate processes under the Property

Law Amendment Act 2007).

The Landscape Concept Plan includes new Queensland frangipani specimen trees along

this boundary. However, alternative fast-growing evergreen trees could also be

established along this boundary if preferred by the Council (and by way of condition),

such as houhere, Strelitzia nicolli, Pittosporum eugenoides, Magnolia Little Gem and olive.

These can be established at a large grade (80L to 160L), with a height at planting of

between 2.5m and 3m.

The proposal also involves works within the protected root zones of three trees (an

English Oak and two Pohutukawa) and the removal of a Puriri and four Acmena trees

growing in the adjacent School Reserve. This aspect of the proposal has been assessed in



the Arboricultural Report prepared by Peers Brown Miller (attached as Annexure 7A).

Section 3.0 of the Arboricultural Report confirms that these removals are subject to a Tree

Asset Owner Approval from Community Facilities (Auckland Council), and this approval

has been subsequently obtained (Annexure 7B). It is also noted that six new park trees

are proposed as replacements (a Puriri, Kohekohe, Taraire, Kowhai, Titoki and Tawapou)

are to be planted along the western boundary within School Reserve in order to mitigate

the loss of the Puriri and Acmena and which will be planted by a Council-approved

contractor in accordance with arboricultural best practice.

3.5 ACCESS AND PARKING

Vehicle access to the on-site parking will be provided by a new 5.5m-wide single access

from New North Road located in the eastern most position (i.e., at 583 New North Road)

and thus rationalise the existing three crossings that serve the properties at present.

Where existing crossings are to be removed, they will be reinstated to road berm and

kerb. This may provide space for additional public on-street parking and re-paving of the

footpath to allow a more even surface.

The proposal includes provision for 43 parking spaces.1 42 of these will be within the

basement floor (B1), with one short-term external space (#43) located at the end of the

access ramp area. This space serviced by electric outlet for charging electric vehicles. The

space adjacent has been set aside for manoeuvring by waste management vehicles.

The access and other transportation-related aspects of the proposed development have

been discussed in the Traffic Impact Assessment (“Traffic Assessment”) prepared by

Traffic Planning Consultants and which is attached as Annexure 8.

Construction traffic -related effects have been addressed at section 5.3 of the Traffic

Assessment. The Pre-application Memo recommended that Construction Traffic

Management Plan (“CTMP”) is discussed in the AEE and that the applicant “proffer the

preparation of a final CTMP”. A draft CTMP has been included as Attachment 3 to the

Traffic Assessment in accordance with this recommendation.

Further transport-related comments have been provided by TPC and are attached as

Annexures 8A and 8B.

3.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT

A report has been prepared by Rubbish Direct who have worked with the applicant to

ensure sufficient provision is provided for the management and collection of household

1 This varies from the 47 spaces referenced in the Traffic Assessment (and arises from a change deleting three spaces in the south-west corner of the basement and one of the short-stay spaces). However, as this number remains compliant with the standards of the AUP(OP), and reduces traffic generation overall, the Traffic Assessment has not been updated.



rubbish and recycling from the development (attached as Annexure 9). The refuse

management areas will be located in the basement level of the building, with

approximately 22m2 of useable space for bin storage and handling. Access to the refuse

management area will be via the accessway to the basement.

Rubbish Direct have recommended the use of seven x 240L wheelie bins for rubbish, one

x 240L wheelie bin for compostables, five x 240L wheelie bins for co-mingled recyclables

and two x 600L flexi-sacks for cardboard, with all bins to be collected three times per

week. The report by Rubbish Direct notes that the area required to store and manoeuvre

these bins is 13.7m2 and so they conclude that the space provided is sufficient to

accommodate expected volumes.

The report also advises that all residential units will be within a 30m carry distance of a

refuse area, and that access between the refuse management area and the collection truck

will comply with NZ Building Code D1 – Access Routes.

Attachment 2 of the Traffic Assessment includes details of tracking movements for

rubbish trucks and confirms that adequate space is available for these manoeuvres.

The Pre-application Memo made the following recommendations with respect to the waste

management assessments and arrangements for the development:

Show access routes between dwellings and waste storage facilities (max carry

distance 30 m – NZ Building Code G15);

Waste storage facilities including room dimensions, design, ventilation, access to

a water tap, security, lighting to be included on a plan e.g., architectural or

landscape;

Waste collection method i.e., how will bins be emptied from storage room to

truck, frequency of collection, size/type of bin;

Management of waste storage room – to monitor smell, vermin, dumping; and

Disposal of large and bulky items.

These matters are considered to have been addressed in the original report as attached

to this application. In particular, the dimensions (distances and height) are depicted in

plan and section view on Sheets A1311 and A2112 of the Architectural Drawings.

It is noted that while the Pre-application Memo suggested that, based on a one-per week

collection frequency, there would not be enough capacity, based on the Council’s

calculator, this did not appear to reflect the fact that a three-per week frequency is

proposed.

The Pre-application Memo also suggested that the Waste Management Plan be prepared

by an independent person/organisation, and not be supplier specific. The Council’s

planning adviser subsequently confirmed that this requirement was not mandatory.



3.7 ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

3.7.1 Infrastructure

(a) General

The proposal is also supported by an Engineering and Infrastructure Report (“Engineering

Report”), including associated engineering plans, prepared by HFC Group (Civil &

Structural Engineers), attached as Annexure 10. The Engineering Report specifically

addresses the bulk excavation and filling works and the recommended sediment

mitigation to complete the works (as further detailed below). It advises that the

construction of the basement will require permanent and temporary retaining, and some

battered cuts within the Site to ensure the stability of neighbouring properties, footpaths

and existing underground services. The report also includes an outline of the proposed

services required for water supply and the disposal of stormwater and wastewater.

(b) Stormwater

In terms of stormwater, the Engineering Report advises as follows:

An existing 150mm public stormwater line crosses into the site from the east. The

existing line which extends into the excavated area will need to be removed and a

new manhole place just inside the boundary [per Drawing G200].

The proposed impermeable area is approximately 592 m2 more than the impermeable

area of the existing sites.

A 25,000 liter water storage tank is proposed for water reuse on the site. Two new

15,000 liter 1.9m diameter detention tanks are also required. Total detention volume

30,000 liters.

The new detention tank will have a 68mm diameter orifice to limit the post

development to the predevelopment discharge into the public stormwater line.

The existing 150mm diameter line has sufficient capacity for this flow.

(Approximately 14.5l/sec)

The existing public line is relatively shallow where it enters the site. As such a

stormwater pump sump and pump will be required to collect and discharge the

ground water collected from behind the retaining walls, and the paved surfaces on

the north side of the building (around the proposed pool area).

Pool overflow will discharge to the sewer.

The report notes that an engineering consent application will be required to provide a

new manhole on the public stormwater line, and to remove the public line that extends



under the building footprint, and that details of the pump sump, pump, detention tank

and water storage tank will be provided as part of the building consent application.

(c) Wastewater

In terms of wastewater, the Engineering Report advises as follows:

An existing 150mm public waste water line extends into the site in the North East

corner

The line runs along the northern boundary to a manhole just inside Lot 20 (BLK 2 DP

171).

Waste water from the proposed development will connect to the existing manhole in

the Northeast corner [refer drawing G200].

The peak design flow from the proposed apartments is about 2.09 l/sec [total peak

including adjacent properties is approx 3.17 l/sec, or 28% of the capacity of the

existing 150mm diameter line].

The report concludes that “the existing 150mm diameter public line which connects to a

[300mm] diameter waste water line at First Avenue has sufficient capacity for the

proposed apartments”.

(d) Water Supply

Water will be supplied to the development from the existing water main running up New

North Road. A hydrant flow test shows that flows are suitable to service the proposed

apartments (32.1 l/sec at a pressure of 470 kPa) and to provide water for the sprinkler

system. It is also noted that stormwater from the roof will be collected in a storage tank

and reused on-site.

3.7.2 Earthworks

The earthworks required for the development are predominantly comprised of cut2 of

4,900m3 with a relatively small amount of fill of 1,140m3, for a total of 6,040m3. The

earthworks will cover an area of approximately 2,030m2, and the earthworks include

stripping topsoil and excavating to the levels indicated on the engineering drawings

(G100, G101, G110 and G111). The maximum excavated depth requiring batters or

temporary retaining is 3.5m, while the maximum depth of fill required varies from 2.6m

in the north-east lawn area and between 1.65m and 3.5m behind the basement and lower

basement walls.

2 Excavation for permanent concrete piles, temporary timber piles and footings are included in the excavation volume.



The Geotechnical Report (refer section 3.7.3 below) advises that:

In general, earthworks at the site will comprise bulk excavation for the basement

levels. However, up to 2 m of new fill may be required in the lower lying, north eastern

corner of the site, to form the lower basement subgrade level in this area. Should this

area be filled, this will require design of a suitable structure to retain the fill.

The Geotechnical Report advises in this regard that careful consideration during detailed

design “should also be given to the analysis of both settlement and stability as a result of

this filling”, or alternatively, “this area of the basement slab could be fully suspended to

mitigate these potential issues”.

The Engineering Report advises that all excavated material will be removed from the Site,

with cut surfaces generally graded into the basement excavations except for the site

works outside the building footprint. For sediment control it states that:

Any water running over the exposed surfaces that does not soak into the ground will

be graded to silt fences or into pump pits and then pumped into silt settlement tanks

[two proprietary settlement tanks] followed by a fabric filter before discharging to

the stormwater connection. Pump pits will also have silt fencing around them.

Details of the silt fencing is shown on the engineering drawings (G111) and the standard

detail from the Council’s Guideline Document 05 (Erosion and Sediment Control).

The Engineering Report also advises that the excavation for the basement levels extends

through the fill, and the stiff to very stiff residual soils. There is no rock to be excavated,

so 20 tonne diggers can complete the excavation without causing excessive noise or

vibration.

Notwithstanding this, a Construction Noise and Vibrations Assessment (“CNVA”) report

has been prepared by Earcon Acoustic Consultants (refer Annexure 10F and 10G). This

report identifies expected infringements of the construction noise standards at adjacent

boundaries of between one to four weeks (per section 10.1 of the report). This aspect of

the works and construction activities will be reasonably short term and able to be

appropriately managed and mitigated through adherence to the operational and

procedural requirements of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

(“CNVMP”). The CNVMP is included as Appendix 1 to the CNVA report. The applicant

accepts the recommendations of this report and such conditions that the Council may

consider necessary to ensure that the works are undertaken in accordance with the

CNVMP.

The bulk excavated material is expected to be able to be removed from the Site, via New

North Road, over a three to four week period, although the excavations will remain open

for approximately four to five months while piling, foundations and the basement walls

are constructed.



3.7.3 Geotechnical

A Geotechnical Assessment Report, prepared by Initia Geotechnical Specialists

(“Geotechnical Report”) also details the geotechnical and soil conditions of the Site, and

is attached as Annexure 11. It notes that:

The development of this building will require perimeter retention to enable the

excavation and construction of the basement levels while ensuring settlement effects

on the neighbouring buildings and infrastructure are minimised. Excavations of up

to approximately 3.5 m will be required along the New North Road frontage, and

these will reduce to the north and east as the upper basement daylights from the

slope. At the south west corner the temporary excavation depth from the existing

level may be up to approximately 4.44 m locally. The southern end of the lower

basement will necessitate an excavation from existing ground level of approximately

5.35 m. The lift pit excavation will be slightly deeper but will only be for a short

duration and over a small area. These excavations are inset from the property

boundaries by approximately 1 m on the west boundary, 2.5 m on the New North

Road frontage, and 7-8 m on the eastern boundary.

The construction of the lower basement level above the gully in the north eastern

corner will require either the existing ground level to be filled, or this area of the

basement to be fully suspended.

The structure will be founded on deep piles extending to the East Coast Bays

Formation rock which is present beneath the site. The basement structure is to be

retained using precast panels which will be temporarily propped off the constructed

pile caps and ground beams prior to the construction of the floor unit to permanently

prop the panel.

The Geotechnical Report also includes particular recommendations with respect to

earthworks, as well as for the design of foundations and retaining walls.

With respect to the advice contained in the Pre-application Memo, the Geotechnical Report

identifies that groundwater was detected within the one of the boreholes established

within the Site, being MBH1. This is located at the upper basement location, adjacent to

New North Road, although it notes that further observation during summer months would

be expected to demonstrate a groundwater level at or below the proposed excavation

depth. Further analysis has been provided in response to Council queries which advises

that the proposal does not require consent for a groundwater diversion or take, and the

reasons for this are set out in the additional assessment attached as Annexure 11A.

The Geotechnical Report also confirms that no rock will be required to be removed as part

of construction activities, noting that “East Coast Bays Formation rock, which is typically

described as a very weak rock, was identified well below the proposed main excavation

level”. The excavation for the basement levels will therefore be located within ground

classified as soils.



3.8 SITE CONTAMINATION

An investigation of the Site for potential contamination was undertaken by Williamson

Water & Land Advisory (“WWLA”), and their report is attached as Annexure 12. It has been

prepared in accordance with requirements for a Preliminary Site Investigation (“PSI”) and

Detailed Site Investigation (“DSI”) as set out in the National Environmental Standard for

Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (“NESCS”) and the

NESCS User’s Guide. It includes an assessment against Ministry for the Environment’s

(“MfE”) Hazardous Activities and Industries List (“HAIL”).

A historical review by WWLA confirmed that residential dwellings have been located on

the Site since at least 1940, with the existing exhibition room at 587-589 used for

commercial purposes, with minor extensions having occurred at various stages. The key

potential sources of contamination relate to the use of asbestos-containing materials

(“ACM”) and lead-based paint on the buildings, the incineration of part of the dwelling at

No. 583 and historic and more recent fill/rubbish placement predominantly at the rear

and in the west of all three properties.

The report by WWLA notes that there is the potential for asbestos building materials, lead-

based paint use, placement of fill and burning of household items including suspected

ACM. As a result, the removal and disposal to licensed landfill of topsoil debris and

shallow fill (potentially to 1m below ground) around the southern half of the Site is

required due to elevated levels of asbestos and/ or metals. The removal and disposal to

managed fill of topsoil in the northern half of the Site is also required due to elevated

levels of metals.

Underlying soils and fill in the northern half of the Site at a distance from the houses are

considered to be suitable for re-use on-site from a contamination perspective.

The report advises that during earthworks there is a risk to site workers, future residents

and neighbouring occupants where asbestos fibres and metals occurs, as well as

ecological receptors at the nearest surface water bodies and receiving soils site (for metals

only). However, following contaminated materials removal and disposal there will be no

ongoing risk.

The Pre-application Memo advised that it would be beneficial for a Site Management Plan

(“SMP”) be prepared as part of the application as otherwise “it will be required as a

condition of consent and will need to be submitted for certification prior to earthworks

commencing”. An SMP has been duly prepared by WWLA (refer Annexure 13) which

informs contaminated land related earthworks decision making and methods, health and

safety compliance and to satisfy likely conditions of consent.



4.0 REASONS FOR CONSENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) prevents the use of land that

contravenes a rule in a plan, or a proposed plan, unless that activity is authorised by a

resource consent, or by existing use rights. The AUP is the relevant plan and has legal

effect – the AUP was declared “operative in part” by the Council in November 2016.

There are no appeals that affect either the application of the Residential: Terrace Housing

and Apartment Buildings (“THAB”) zone to the subject Site, nor the application of the

associated standards or earthworks and transportation rules of the AUP. The provisions

of the AUP as they relate to this proposal are considered to be beyond challenge and can

be considered as operative for the purposes of this application.

4.2 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN (OPERATIVE IN PART)

The reasons for which consents are required under the AUP are as follows:

Earthworks

(a) The proposal involves earthworks over an area in excess of 1,000m2 (total of

2,030m2), and of more than 250m3 (total of 6,200m3) and requires consent as a

Restricted Discretionary Activity, pursuant to Rules E12.4.1(A6) and E12.4.1(A9).

Trees in Open Space Zones

(b) The proposal involves works within the dripline of three trees and the removal of

six trees located within School Reserve (including a Coral tree located only partly

within the reserve). These works require consent as a Restricted Discretionary

Activity pursuant to Rules E16.4.1(A6) and (A10).

Construction Noise

(c) The construction noise levels 70dB LAeq and 85dB LAmax limits under standard

E25.6.27 are proposed to be exceeded, with the following noise limits proposed

to be adopted for specific receivers as follows:

During Augering for Retention Piles – Exceedances for 1 week:

• 581 New North Road: Up to 73dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

During initial Excavation from current ground level – Exceedances for 2 weeks:


During Augering for Foundation and Bridging Piles – Exceedances for 1 week:




• 74 First Avenue: Up to 78dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

• 76 First Avenue: Up to 73dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

• 1A School Road (ECEC): Up to 73dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

• 579D New North Road: Up to 73dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

• 560, 564, 566 New North Road: Up to 73dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

• 2 Western Springs Road: Up to 73dB LAeq and 90dB LAmax

Contaminated Land

(d) The proposal involves the excavation of soils of more than 200m3 that contain

‘elevated levels of contaminants’ that exceed the permitted activity discharge

criteria under E30.6.1.4.1 and requires consent as a controlled activity.

Note:

The report by WWLA comments that in order to meet controlled activity

requirements, the applicant must provide a DSI and a SMP (supplied under

separate cover) and confirm that discharges from the Site (stormwater at the

boundary, surface water within the site or groundwater beneath the Site) meets

specific criterion 5. Given the intact nature of the Site surfaces (grassed and

paved), and the depth of groundwater beneath the site (> 5 mBGL) and the low

permeability nature of the underlying soils/ weathered rock, it is highly likely that

groundwater discharges from the Site will meet the applicable criteria. Controlled

activity consent conditions are therefore considered to be met.

Activity

(e) The proposal involves “dwellings” and requires consent as a Restricted

Discretionary Activity, pursuant to H6.4.1(A3) (noting that it does not comply

with standards H6.6.5 and H6.6.8 as set out below).

(f) On the basis of reason (d) above, consent is also required as a Restricted

Discretionary Activity pursuant to H6.4.1(A35).

(g) Consent is required as a Restricted Discretionary Activity for a new building which

does not comply with H6.6.6 (Height in relation to boundary) along the eastern

boundary but complies with H6.6.7 (Alternative height in relation to boundary).

Height standards

(h) The proposal infringes the following standards for development within the THAB

zone, and which require consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant

to C1.9(3):



(i) Under H6.6.5, the building will infringe the maximum height standard of

16m (rolling method) by up to 3.5m (east elevation) and 5.2m (north

elevation), incorporating most of Level 4 and the northern end of Level 3

(refer Drawings A2002 and 2003).

(ii) Under H6.6.8(1), the building will infringe the height in relation to boundary

standard (2.5m + 45o) applying to the northern boundary with the site at 76

First Avenue (Single House Zone) to a maximum height of 4.04m, tapering

to compliance over a length of 5.08m.3

Note:

The proposal infringes the following standards for development within the THAB

Zone, although these are not noted as standards to be complied with under

H6.4.1(A3), but are set out here for completeness:

Under H6.6.11, the proposal will exceed the maximum building coverage

standard (50%, 1,188m2) by 3%, with 54.7% (1,290m2) proposed.4

Under H6.6.12, the proposal will not provide the required minimum

landscaped area (30%, 713m2), with 28.3% (672m2) proposed.

Under H6.6.13(4) the proposal does not comply with the minimum width

dimension for the outlook area for dwellings as the width of the outlook is

not able to be centered on the relevant window.

Transport

(i) The proposal involves the development of access that is subject to a Vehicle

Access Restriction (being located on an Arterial Road) and so requires consent

under E27.4.1(A2) and E27.6.4.1(3) as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

(j) The proposal involves the use of a vehicle crossing within 2m of a crossing on an

adjacent site (being the driveway serving 581 New North Road) and requires

consent under E27.4.1(A2) and E27.6.4.2.1(T146) as a Restricted Discretionary

Activity.

(k) The proposal involves the use of an access for heavy vehicles that has a gradient

of 1:5 at its steepest. This exceeds the 1:8 maximum gradient specified under

Table E27.6.4.4.1(T158) and requires consent as a Restricted Discretionary

Activity.

3 This figure is based on a diagram that ‘swings’ the 2.5m + 45 deg HIRTB plane from the south-western corner of the boundary of 76 First Avenue. 4 This figure incorporates 41m2 (1.7%) of retained area to the north-east of the Site which is more than 1.5m in height (being a maximum of 2.06m and tapering back to ground level) and thus required to be included as a ‘building’ in accordance with the AUP Definitions.



Notes:

The Engineering Report advises that the proposal results in an increase of

only 974m2 of impermeable surfaces relative to those associated with the

recently existing development of the Site. Accordingly, no consent is

considered to be required in terms of Rule E8.4.1(A9).

The proposal will be constructed in less than 24 months, and so is a

permitted activity in terms of the temporary activities rules at E40.4(A20).

4.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD (CONTAMINATED SITES)

The NESCS is considered to apply to the Site because HAIL activities have been assessed

to have occurred, such that contaminant concentrations in soil within the proposed works

area exceed background levels, and because soil disturbance and removal is proposed.

Consent under Clause 10 of the NESCS as a Restricted Discretionary Activity is therefore

required because remedial actions and the volume and duration of bulk earthworks

exceed the permitted activity provisions for the applicable soil contaminant standard in

Table 10.

4.4 OVERALL ACTIVTY STATUS

Overall, the proposal requires resource consent under the AUP and the NESCS as a

Restricted Discretionary Activity.

5.0 SECTION 88

Pursuant to s88 of the RMA, an application for resource consent shall include an

assessment of any actual or potential effects that the activity may have on the

environment, and the ways in which any adverse effects would be avoided, remedied or

mitigated.

Section 88 stipulates that an assessment of effects shall be in such detail that corresponds

with the scale and significance of the actual or potential effects that the activity may have

on the environment and shall be prepared in accordance with the Fourth Schedule. It is

considered that this application and the assessment of effects provided at section 6.0 of

this report as part of the notification assessment is in accordance with those

requirements.



6.0 NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT

6.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

6.1.1 Introduction

Under s95A(3) of the RMA an application is required to be publicly notified if:

the applicant requests public notification;

public notification is required under s95C; and

the application is made jointly with an application to exchange recreation reserve

land.

None of these provisions apply in this case - i.e., the applicant does not request public

notification; and public notification is not required under s95C (see section 6.1.2 below);

and there is no concurrent proposal to include an exchange of recreation reserve land.

6.1.2 Public Notification Exclusions

As part of “step 1”, s95A(3) of the RMA provides that an application is required to be

publicly notified if:

the applicant requests public notification;

public notification is required under s95C; and

the application is made jointly with an application to exchange recreation reserve

land.

None of these provisions apply in this case - i.e., the applicant does not request public

notification; and public notification is not required under s95C (see section 6.1.2 below);

and there is no concurrent proposal to include an exchange of recreation reserve land.

6.1.3 Public Notification Exclusions

As part of “step 2”, s95A(5)5 provides that an application cannot be publicly notified if:

a rule or national environmental standard (“NES”) precludes notification;

the application is for:

- a controlled activity; or

- a boundary activity (as defined by s87AAB).

5 As amended by the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020.



In this case, neither limitation applies. It is noted, however, that clause H6.5 (Notification)

of the THAB zone does provide for a general exclusion from notification in respect of

(compliant) dwellings and the use of the alternative HIRTB standard, that:

(1) Any application for resource consent for the following activities will be

considered without public or limited notification or the need to obtain the

written approval from affected parties unless the Council decides that special

circumstances exist under section 95A(4)6 of the Resource Management Act

1991:

…

(a) dwellings that comply with all of the standards listed in Table H6.4.1

Activity table;

…

(c) New buildings and additions to buildings which do not comply with [Rule]

H6.6.6 Height in relation to boundary, but comply with Rule [H]6.6.7

Alternative height in relation to boundary;

…

While the proposal is broadly consistent with the intent of both (a) and (c), and the intent

of the AUP with respect to notification (and limited notification), it does involve an

infringement of the maximum height standard, as well as other consent activities such

that notification is not precluded by a rule of the AUP.

6.1.4 Where Public Notification is Required

For “step 3”, s95A(7) and (8) provide that public notification is required if (a) the

application is for one or more activities, and one of those activities is subject to a rule or

NES that requires public notification, or the Council decides, in accordance with s95D,

that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are

more than minor.

No relevant rules require public notification, including under the NESCS.

The potential adverse effects of the proposal on the environment is carried out in section

6.1.5 below by reference to the matters for which consent is required under the AUP, and

the relevant matters to which the Council has restricted the exercise of its discretion (per

s95D(c) of the RMA).

6 Now a reference to s95A(9), per the October 2017 changes to the RMA.



6.1.5 Assessment in accordance with s95D

(a) Introduction

Section 95D sets out the tests for determining whether adverse effects will be more than

minor:

(a) must disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy—

(i) the land in, on, or over which the activity will occur; or

(ii) any land adjacent to that land; and

(b) may disregard an adverse effect of the activity if a rule or national

environmental standard permits an activity with that effect; and

(c) in the case of a controlled or restricted discretionary activity, must disregard

an adverse effect of the activity that does not relate to a matter for which a

rule or national environmental standard reserves control or restricts discretion;

and

(d) must disregard trade competition and the effects of trade competition; and

(e) must disregard any effect on a person who has given written approval to the

relevant application

These matters are addressed below.

(b) Adjacent Land

Adjacent land, in terms of s95D(a), is comprised of those properties that border the Site

to the west, north and east, and opposite the Site to the south, as follows:

581 New North Road (site to the east);

74 and 76 First Avenue (sites to the north/north-east);

1A Western Springs Road (reserve land forming part of School Reserve to the west

and north); and

560 and 562-566 New North Road (sites to the south on the opposite side of New

North Road).

The relationship of these properties to the subject Site is depicted in the aerial photograph

in Figure 2 below.



Figure 2 – Adjacent Land (Auckland Council Geomaps)

The effects of the proposal on persons owning or occupying the above properties will be

disregarded in the following assessment of effects at section 6.1.5 below.

(c) Permitted Baseline

As noted above, s95D(b) of the RMA requires that a Council “may disregard an adverse

effect of the activity if a rule or national environmental standard permits an activity with

that effect”. This forms part of the permitted baseline which has evolved through case

law and defines the environment against which a proposed activity’s degree of adverse

effect is gauged. The permitted baseline comprises the existing environment, non-fanciful

activities and their constituent effects that would be permitted as of right by the AUP, and

the effects of activities enabled by an unimplemented consent.

In this case, and in terms of the primary residential development component of the

proposal, there are no minimum density standards that apply within the THAB zone,

however dwellings, and new buildings accommodating dwellings, require consent as a

restricted discretionary activity, and therefore it can be said that there are no (relevant)

activities that are permitted by the AUP. Nevertheless, as a multi-unit residential

development, the proposal is considered to represent a generally expected form of

development in the zone and accords with its purpose as described at H6.1 which states,

inter alia:

The [THAB] Zone is a high-intensity zone enabling a greater intensity of development

than previously provided for. This zone provides for urban residential living in the

form of terrace housing and apartments. The zone is predominantly located around



metropolitan, town and local centres and the public transport network to support the

highest levels of intensification.

However, it remains necessary to consider those technical or ancillary aspects of the

proposal that require consent as restricted discretionary activities and which remain

subject to an assessment in terms of public notification. By way of preliminary comment:

Earthworks are necessary to provide for the building platforms and access for the

development;

Earthworks will be carried out in a manner designed to minimise risks associated

with the removal of contaminants from the Site;

The works will be carried out in a manner consistent with arboricultural

recommendations with respect to those adjacent trees to be retained, and those

to be removed;

The height infringement is confined to the northern side of the Site, and to the

south or south-west of adjacent properties, and set back approximately 13.5m

from the northern boundary such that it will have minimal effects for nearby sites;

Use of the alternative height to boundary standard and infringement of the

standard height to boundary standard will be in accordance with the relevant

criteria; and

The proposed new vehicle crossings are a necessary component of the

development and has been designed in accordance with transportation

engineering advice.

In general, therefore, the proposal represents a reasonably expected form and type of

development in the THAB zone (such as that recently completed at 841-845 New North

Road, refer images at Annexure 14), and no significant adverse effects on the

environment is expected to arise from the various aspects of the development described

above.

It is also relevant to consider the proposal in respect of the existing environment, which

as set out in section 2.0 above, is generally a residential neighbourhood, but with

significant variation in residential typologies as would be expected to be found along a

primary arterial corridor through an older established area of Auckland city. The proposal

will be consistent with elements this existing character of the adjacent residential area,

but will reflect the new standards of the AUP, and the THAB zone in particular, and will

thus be of a greater density than most of the residential development in the locality.

However, it is also considered that the ancillary aspects of the development described

above will not be unusual or unexpected features within the context of the Site’s current

zoning.

(d) Matters of discretion

With respect to s95D(c), the proposal is a restricted discretionary activity. The potential

adverse effects of the proposal on the environment has therefore been carried out below

by reference to the matters for which consent is required under the AUP, and the relevant



matters to which the AUP has restricted the exercise of the Council’s discretion. In

particular, the assessment below has assessed the effects of the proposal in respect of

the above ancillary aspects of the proposal that are not precluded from limited

notification.

However, it remains necessary to consider those technical or ancillary aspects of the

proposal that require consent as restricted discretionary activities are which remain

subject to an assessment in terms of public notification.

(e) Trade competition and written approvals

In terms of s95D(d) and (e), there are no trade competition effects or written approvals to

be considered as part of this application or assessment of adverse effects.

6.1.6 Assessment of Effects

(a) Introduction

As a restricted discretionary activity, and in accordance with s95D(c) as described above,

the assessment of the proposal is informed by the assessment criteria relating to new

dwellings (and buildings) in the zone, earthworks, trees, contamination, stormwater and

transportation, as discussed in the following sections of this report.

(b) Earthworks

As noted in section 4.0, the proposal will involve earthworks with an area of 2,030m2 with

a cut volume of 4,900m3 and a fill volume of 1,140m3 (6,200m3 net). Accordingly, the

proposal is subject to the assessment criteria at Clause E12.8.2(1). By way of introduction,

it is confirmed that the works will be carried out in accordance with the E12.6.2 General

Standards of the AUP (as applicable to this proposal and Site):

…

(2) Land disturbance must not result in any instability of land or structures at or

beyond the boundary of the property where the land disturbance occurs.

(3) The land disturbance must not cause malfunction or result in damage to

network utilities, or change the cover over network utilities so as to create the

potential for damage or malfunction.

(4) Access to public footpaths, berms, private properties, network utilities, or

public reserves must not be obstructed unless that is necessary to undertake

the works or prevent harm to the public.

(5) Measures must be implemented to ensure that any discharge of dust beyond

the boundary of the site is avoided or limited such that it does not cause

nuisance.

…

(12) Earthworks (including filling) within overland flow paths must maintain the

same entry and exit point at the boundaries of a site and not result in any



adverse changes in flood hazards beyond the site, unless such a change is

authorised by an existing resource consent.

The relevant criteria are set out below and commented on as follows:

(a) whether applicable standards are complied with;

Comment:

As noted above, the applicable standards under E12.6.2 will be complied with,

and conditions to this effect would be accepted.

(b) the extent to which the earthworks will generate adverse noise, vibration,

odour, dust, lighting and traffic effects on the surrounding environment and

the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures;

Comment:

The proposed earthworks are not considered to be excessive or out of the

ordinary for a residential construction project and are able to be managed in

accordance with standard construction measures as noted above (and set out in

the Engineering Report), such that they will be compliant with normal

construction noise standards.

(c) whether the earthworks and any associated retaining structures are designed

and located to avoid adverse effects on the stability and safety of surrounding

land, buildings, and structures;

Comment:

Site stability considerations have also been addressed in the Geotechnical Report

as noted in section 3.7 above (and adopted as part of the Engineering Report).

Accordingly, and based on the above design parameters, it is considered that any

potential stability or safety effects for adjacent properties are able to be avoided.

(d) whether the earthworks and final ground levels will adversely affect overland

flow paths or increase potential volume or frequency of flooding within the site

or surrounding sites;

Comment:

No overland flow paths affect the Site.

(e) whether a protocol for the accidental discovery of kōiwi, archaeology and

artefacts of Māori origin has been provided and the effectiveness of the protocol

in managing the impact on Mana Whenua cultural heritage if a discovery is

made;

Comment:

There is no expectation that any such accidental discovery could occur, having

regard to the context of the Site, and the depth of the proposed works. A standard



Accidental Discovery Protocol condition would be accepted if deemed necessary

by the Council.

(f) whether the extent or impacts of adverse effects from the land disturbance can

be mitigated by managing the duration, season or staging of such works;

Comment:

The proposed works are of a reasonable nature, and able to be managed through

standard sediment control measures, such that no seasonal restrictions are

considered necessary. The proposed management of sediment discharges has

been addressed in the Engineering Report as discussed at section 3.7 above.

It is considered that based on the proposed erosion and sediment control

measures, that the potential adverse effects of earthworks can be appropriately

managed.

(g) the extent to which the area of the land disturbance is minimised, consistent

with the scale of development being undertaken;

Comment:

The area of land disturbance is minimised to that necessary to create the required

building platform and access driveway.

(h) the extent to which the land disturbance is necessary to provide for the

functional or operational requirements of the network utility installation, repair

or maintenance;

Comment:

This criterion is not relevant.

(i) the extent of risks associated with natural hazards and whether the risks can

be reduced or not increased;

Comment:

This criterion is not relevant.

(j) whether the land disturbance and final ground levels will adversely affect

existing utility services;

Comment:

The Engineering Report addresses the provision of new stormwater and

wastewater connections. No adverse effects in respect of this criterion are

therefore considered to arise.

(k) the extent to which the land disturbance is necessary to accommodate

development otherwise provided for by the Plan, or to facilitate the appropriate



use of land in the open space environment, including development proposed in

a relevant operative reserve management plan or parks management plan;

Comment:

The earthworks will facilitate the proposed development, which has been

designed in accordance with the provisions of the THAB zone under the AUP.

Accordingly, the proposed earthworks are considered to be consistent with the above

assessment criteria.

(c) Trees

As noted in section 4.0, the proposal will involve works within the dripline of an English

Oak and two Pohutukawa and the removal of six trees (a Puriri, four Acmena and a Flame

tree) within the adjacent School Reserve. The relevant matters of discretion from

E16.8.1(1) are set out below:

(a) the effect on the values of the tree or trees;

(b) any loss or reduction of amenity values provided by the tree or trees;

(c) the risk of damage to people or property;

(d) any mitigation proposed;

(e) consistency with best arboricultural practice;

(f) methods to control plant pathogens;

(g) any tree works plan, reserve management plan, or landscape plan relevant to

the tree or group of trees;

(h) the functional and operational needs of infrastructure; and

(i) the benefits derived from infrastructure.

The corresponding assessment criteria at E16.8.2(1) have been assessed at sections 8.0

and 9.0 of the report by Peers Brown Miller.

Key matters noted with respect to the works within the dripline are that:

Design alterations have been incorporated to minimize the level of root disturbance.

Arboricultural supervision of the works is also recommended to lessen the impacts of

works within the protected root zone of Tree 1. It is considered that those specific

values outlined above will be maintained, so as any effect would be less than minor.

Appropriate tree protection measures are proposed, ensuring that any potential

adverse effect would be minimized.

Some pruning may be in excess of the permitted standards and therefore consent

would be required. However, it is anticipated that the values would not be adversely

affected as the proposed pruning works would be undertaken in accordance with

accepted modern arboricultural practice.

In addition, it notes that “[c]omprehensive tree protection guidelines have been detailed”

which “are focused on maintaining best practice for tree management during the



construction phase” and “[a]ll pruning works will be undertaken by Council-approved

arborists in accordance with best arboricultural practice and consistent with best practice

guidelines for tree management”.

With respect to the trees to be removed, the report comments:

Trees 3 to 7 are mature specimens and in fair to moderate condition. As Tree 3s

health is declining and Trees 4 – 7 are pest plant, it is considered they will provide

only limited value in terms of this criterion. The subject trees are not considered to

provide a quantifiable function in terms of the other listed attributes and functions.

The subject trees provide some level of positive amenity simply by virtue of their

presence in the park. However, the tree removal is balanced against the

recommended provision of new park trees as mitigation. Over time, any visual

amenity considered to have been lost, would be regained.

The Arboricultural Assessment also includes a set of appropriate works methods and tree

protection measures that are recommended to be adopted and put in place to ensure that

adverse effects on the English Oak and Pohutukawa outside the project site are minimised

and/or avoided, and conditions to reflect these undertakings would be accepted by the

applicant.

As previously noted, the removal of trees within School Reserve has received asset owner

approval (TAOA) from Community Facilities. With respect to the small part of the Flame

(Coral) tree within School Reserve, the TAOA comments (at 1(e)) that:

the coral tree is not considered a Council owned tree by Community Facilities, as the

vast majority of the tree is not originating on council land, therefore Council has no

interest in this tree from an ownership position.

Based on the assessment contained within the Arboricultural Assessment, it is considered

that the proposal will be able to be undertaken in accordance with the relevant matters

of discretion.

(d) Construction Noise

As noted in section 4.0, construction activities will result in exceedances of the

construction noise standards for short periods of time (up to four weeks).

The matters of discretion are elaborated upon through the assessment criteria set out at

E25.8.2(1) as follows:

(a) whether activities can be managed so that they do not generate unreasonable

noise and vibration levels on adjacent land uses particularly activities sensitive

to noise;

(b) the extent to which the noise or vibration generated by the activity:



(i) will occur at times when disturbance to sleep can be avoided or

minimised; and

(ii) will be compatible with activities occurring or allowed to occur in the

surrounding area; and

(iii) will be limited in duration, or frequency or by hours of operation; and

(iv) will exceed the existing background noise and vibration levels in that

environment and the reasonableness of the cumulative levels; and

(v) can be carried out during daylight hours, such as road works and works

on public footpaths.

…

(d) whether the measures to minimise the noise or vibration generated by the

activity represent the best practicable option.

As noted in section 3.7.2, this aspect of the works and construction activities will be

reasonably short term (as described in the addendum to the CNVA report) and able to be

appropriately managed and mitigated through adherence to the operational and

procedural requirements of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan

(“CNVMP”), which is included as Appendix 1 to the CNVA report. The applicant accepts

the recommendations of this report and such conditions that the Council may consider

necessary to ensure that the works are undertaken in accordance with the CNVMP, and

addresses the above assessment criteria – in particular, the construction activities:

will be managed in accordance with the CNVMP to ensure they do not generate

unreasonable noise on adjacent land uses;

will occur during normal construction times (daytime) to avoid or minimise sleep

disturbance;

are compatible with residential activity, insofar as the works form part of a

development that is enabled by the provisions of the THAB zone;

will not give rise to cumulative levels given the overall brevity of the exceedances

will not be of unreasonable volume or duration such that consideration of

whether they meet the best practicable option (per s16 of the RMA) is necessary.

However, best practice mitigation will be implemented, in accordance with the

CNVMP.

(e) Contaminated Land

As noted in section 4.0, the proposal involves the excavation of soils of more than 200m3

that contain ‘elevated levels of contaminants’ that exceed the permitted activity discharge

criteria under E30.6.1.4.1 and requires consent as a controlled activity.

The matters of control are set out at E30.7.1 as follows:

(1) the adequacy of the detailed site investigation report including:

(a) site sampling;

(b) laboratory analysis; and

(c) risk assessment.

(2) the need for and adequacy of a site management plan (contaminated land);



(3) the need for and adequacy of a remedial action plan (contaminated land);

(4) how the discharge is to be:

(a) managed;

(b) monitored, including frequency and location of monitoring; and

(c) reported on.

(5) the physical constraints of the site and operational practicalities;

(6) the transport, disposal and tracking of soil and other materials taken away in

the course of the activity;

(7) the effect on potable water supplies;

(8) methods to identify contaminant risks prior to works commencing such as

qualitative assessments of risk;

(9) protocols around notifying the Council of contaminant risks;

(10) how stormwater is to be managed;

(11) soil management during work and at the completion of the works;

(12) odour control;

(13) vapour control;

(14) groundwater management;

(15) contingency plans;

(16) remediation or ongoing management of the site, its timing and standard;

(17) the nature and type of close out criteria if proposed;

(18) the need for a financial bond;

(19) the need for any review conditions in the event that standards to be achieved

are not achieved;

(20) the timing and nature of the review conditions; and

(21) the duration of resource consent.

E30.7.2 specifies that the relevant assessment criteria as being:

(1) whether the reports and information provided adequately address the effects

of discharges into air, or into water, or onto or into water from contaminated

land.

The Contamination Report by WWLA has assessed the potential effects associated with

the required excavation of the Site. It advises that:

Removal and disposal to licensed landfill of topsoil debris/ ash and shallow fill

(potentially to 1 m below ground) around the houses in the southern half of the

site is required due to elevated levels of asbestos and/ or metals. This also

applies to the surficial rubbish at the rear of all dwellings and across the bulk

of No. 583.

Removal and disposal to managed fill of topsoil in the northern half of the site

is required due to elevated levels of metals.

Underlying soils and fill in the northern half of the site at a distance from the

houses are suitable for re-use on site from a contamination perspective.

It also advises that an SMP will be required to support the soil removal process, the

consent application and guide earthworks and health and safety controls related to

ground contamination, and will include procedures in the event of unexpected



contamination being encountered. This has been prepared and is attached as Annexure

13.

(f) Residential Dwellings

The relevant matters of discretion for new dwellings in the THAB zone are set out under

H6.8.1(2) of the AUP as follows:

(a) the effects on the neighbourhood character, residential amenity, safety and the

surrounding residential area from all of the following:

(i) building intensity, scale, location, form and appearance;

(ii) traffic;

(iii) design of parking and access.

(b) all of the following standards:

(i) Standard H6.6.10 Maximum impervious areas;

(ii) Standard H6.6.11 Building coverage;

(iii) Standard H6.6.12 Landscaped area;

(iv) Standard H6.6.13 Outlook space;

(v) Standard H6.6.14 Daylight;

(vi) Standard H6.6.15 Outdoor living space;

(vii) Standard H6.6.16 Front, side and rear fences and walls; and

(viii) Standard H6.6.17 Minimum dwelling size.

(c) Infrastructure and servicing.

The relevant assessment criteria for integrated residential development are set out at

Clause H6.8.2(2) and are commented on below:

Relevant standards

(a) the extent to which or whether the development achieves the purpose outlined

in the following standards or what alternatives are provided that result in the

same or a better outcome:

(i) Standard H6.6.10 Maximum impervious areas;

(ii) Standard H6.6.11 Building coverage;

(iii) Standard H6.6.12 Landscaped area;

(iv) Standard H6.6.13 Outlook space;

(v) Standard H6.6.14 Daylight;

(vi) Standard H6.6.15 Outdoor living space; and

(vii) Standard H6.6.16 Front, side and rear fences and walls; and

(viii) Standard H6.6.17 Minimum dwelling size.

Comment:

The proposal complies with standards H6.6.10, 14-17. The infringements to the

building coverage, landscaped area and outlook space standards are assessed

separately in section 7.3.5 of this report.



Relevant policies

Criteria (b) – (i) require consideration of policies H6.3(1) – (8) respectively. These

are set out and commented on as follows:

(1) Enable a variety of housing types at high densities including terrace housing

and apartments and integrated residential development such as retirement

villages.

Comment:

The proposal provides for the provision of additional housing types (i.e.

apartments) within the Kingsland area, and will provide for additional choice in

residential living.

(2) Require the height, bulk, form and appearance of development and the

provision of setbacks and landscaped areas to achieve a high-density urban

built character of predominantly five, six or seven storey buildings in identified

areas, in a variety of forms.

Comment:

The proposed apartment building is considered to achieve a high density urban

built character for its Site and surrounds.

(3) Encourage development to achieve attractive and safe streets and public open

spaces including by:

(a) providing for passive surveillance

(b) optimising front yard landscaping

(c) minimising visual dominance of garage doors.

Comment:

The proposed design is oriented to New North Road, with its main entrance lobby

and a number of apartments having direct outlook to the street, and this

providing for passive surveillance of the public realm (as well as enabling an

improvement to the adjacent footpath environment through rationalisation of the

existing vehicle crossings). Front yard landscaping has been well considered and

aligns with the vertical emphasis of the front of the building. No garage doors

will be included.

(4) In identified locations adjacent to centres, enable greater building height

through the application of the Height Variation Control where the additional

development potential enabled:

(a) provides an appropriate transition in building scale from the adjoining

higher density business zone to neighbouring lower intensity residential

zones, and;

(b) supports public transport, social infrastructure and the vitality of the

adjoining centre.



Comment:

The Site is not subject to a Height Variation Control. Nevertheless, the height

standard for the zone are considered to provide for an appropriate transition in

building scale between the Site and the adjacent reserve and Single House zone

to the north, as well as supporting public transport and the vitality of both the

Morningside centre to the west, and Kingsland Village to the east.

(5) Manage the height and bulk of development to maintain daylight access and a

reasonable standard of privacy, and to minimise visual dominance effects to

adjoining sites and developments.

Comment:

The proposed building has been designed to be compliant with the relevant

height to boundary standards in respect of the adjacent site to the east and

thereby maintain an appropriate level of daylight and privacy to that property.

The separation distance from the building to residential development at 76 First

Avenue, and the narrow overlap of the building with that property boundary

(2.3m) will also minimise dominance, daylight and privacy effects in respect of

that property.

(6) Require accommodation to be designed to meet the day to day needs of

residents by:

(a) providing privacy and outlook; and

(b) providing access to daylight and sunlight, and providing the amenities

necessary for those residents.

Comment:

The proposed apartments have been designed to ensure a good standard of

privacy and outlook and to have access to daylight and sunlight. Outlook to the

north and west (over School Reserve) and setbacks to the boundaries to the north-

east and east will ensure a good standard of amenity is maintained for future

occupants.

(7) Encourage accommodation to have useable and accessible outdoor living space.

Comment:

The proposed apartments have useable and accessible outdoor living space on

both a per-unit basis, through the provision of individual balconies, as well as to

communal residents’ lounge and outdoor deck/pool amenity area.

(8) Restrict the maximum impervious area on a site in order to manage the amount

of stormwater runoff generated by a development and ensure that adverse

effects on water quality, quantity and amenity values are avoided or mitigated.

Comment:

Impervious surfaces have been restricted to 1,633m2, or 68.8%, to ensure that

stormwater runoff volumes are minimised to levels consistent with anticipated



volumes under the THAB zone standards. The management of stormwater has

been assessed in the Engineering Report, as set out at section 3.7 above. On the

basis of that assessment, it is considered that stormwater flows from the Site can

be appropriately managed and will have less than minor adverse effects in respect

of the downstream property.

Infrastructure and servicing

(j) infrastructure and servicing:

(i) Whether there is adequate capacity in the existing stormwater and public

reticulated water supply and wastewater network to service the proposed

development.

(ii) Where adequate network capacity is not available, whether adequate

mitigation is proposed.

Comment:

In respect of infrastructure and servicing, the Engineering Report confirms that

there is adequate capacity in respect of all relevant services, as discussed in

section 3.7.

Waste management

(k) the extent to which the necessary storage and waste collection and recycling

facilities is provided in locations conveniently accessible and screened from

streets and public open spaces.

Comment:

As set out in section 3.6, a Waste Management Plan has been prepared by Rubbish

Direct in order to ensure that provisions for the storage and collection of rubbish

and recyclables are sufficient. In respect of the criteria, it is considered that the

storage and collection area is conveniently accessible for collection vehicles, and

by being located in the basement floor will be screened from the street (and

public places generally).

Traffic

(l) traffic:

(i) the extent to which the activity avoids or mitigates adverse effects on the

safe and efficient operation of the immediate transport network.

(ii) H6.8.2 (2)(l)(i) is not considered where the development is located adjacent

to a Business – City Centre Zone, Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone or

Business – Town Centre Zone.

Comment:

The traffic generation characteristics of the proposed development have been

assessed in the Traffic Assessment. That report concludes that the level of traffic

generated by the development “can be accommodated on the road network with

little or no effect”.



Overall the proposal is considered to align with the relevant matters of discretion for new

dwellings in the THAB zone, such that the proposed building does not result in adverse

effects on the surrounding environment that would be minor or more than minor.

(g) Maximum Height and Height in Relation to Boundary

(i) Introduction

As noted in section 4.0, the proposal includes an infringement of the maximum height

standard part of the northern boundary (Rule H6.6.5) and the ‘standard’ height in relation

to boundary (“HIRTB”) standard to the lower intensity zone to the north (Rule H6.6.8(1)(a)).

The height infringement affects the north-eastern half of Level 4, and a north-eastern

section of Level 3, corresponding with the downward slope of the Site in that direction.

The HIRTB infringement is for a narrow (2.24m-wide) north-eastern -most corner of Level

4. These matters require assessments in terms of the matters of discretion at H6.8.1(4),

being:

(a) any policy which is relevant to the standard;

(b) the purpose of the standard;

(c) the effects of the infringement of the standard;

(d) the effects on the rural and coastal character of the zone;

(e) the effects on the amenity of neighbouring sites;

(f) the effects of any special or unusual characteristic of the site which is relevant

to the standard;

(g) the characteristics of the development;

(h) any other matters specifically listed for the standard; and

(i) where more than one standard will be infringed, the effects of all infringements.

The assessment criteria at H6.8.2(5) also identifies the relevant policies with reference to

item (a) above, being Policies H6.3(1), (2), (4) and (5).

These matters are addressed as follows:

(ii) Relevant Policies

The relevant policies have been addressed at section (e) above. The overall scale of the

building has been considered in respect of those policies and found to be consistent with

them. It is noted that the height and HIRTB exceedances are to the rear of the building

and so will not have a notable effect on the public realm, as viewed from New North Road,

and are primarily a matter for consideration in terms of effects on adjacent properties by

reference to the criteria relating to neighbouring buildings at (iv) below, and as addressed

in the limited notification assessment at section 6.2.3.

(iii) Purpose of the standards

The purpose of the height standard is stated at H6.6.5 to:



to manage the height of buildings to provide for terrace housing and apartments and

achieve an urban built character of predominantly five storeys or six or seven storeys

in identified locations adjacent to centres.

The proposed building is five storeys (plus basement floors), thus achieving an urban

built character, and so the proposal is considered to address this stated purpose.

The purpose of the HIRTB standard is stated at H6.6.8 to:

to manage the height and bulk of buildings at boundaries to maintain a reasonable

level of sunlight access and minimise visual dominance effects to immediate

neighbours within lower intensity zones and small public open spaces.

The proposed building is well set back from the boundary to 76 First Avenue (over 13m),

and sits to its south, thus avoiding dominance or shading effects within that property.

(iv) Effects of the infringement of the standard (including for neighbouring

properties)

The effects of the building in terms of the wider environment have been addressed by

reference to the relevant policies. For adjacent properties (as also applicable to an

assessment under s95E), it is considered that adverse effects will be minimised through

the form of the building, whereby Level 5 is inset from the Level 4 roof parapet,

particularly with respect to its north-south section, while Levels 1 – 4 are 9.9m from the

boundary with 581 New North Road, and 13.5m to the boundary with 76 First Avenue.

These extensive setbacks ensure that the building will not be particularly dominant from

these closer properties, given the respective position of the dwellings contained within

them (i.e., 581 New North Road is closer to the road frontage, while 76 First Avenue is

also closer to its frontage, as shown in the diagram at drawings A2111 and A2112).

The proposal also incorporates additional screening elements to the balconies for Units

113, 213 and 313 to address potential concerns relating to overlooking and/or privacy

effects for adjacent First Avenue properties.

The shading diagrams provided at drawings A6961 – 6963 demonstrate that the proposal

will not give rise to adverse shading effects on the surrounding environment when

compared to a compliant development.

(v) Any unusual site characteristics

While not necessarily a unique site characteristic, the slope of the Site downwards towards

the north-eastern boundary can be considered to be ‘unusual’ when considered against

sites of more level gradient. This slope makes compliance with the height standard more

difficult, but the design of the building has sought to respond to this characteristic by

orienting the building towards the site frontage and limiting the length of Level 5 to



minimise the overall volume of the height infringement. This also confines the extent of

the HIRTB infringement to Level 4.

(vi) Summary

Overall, the proposed infringements of the height and HIRTB standards are considered to

be in accordance with the matters of discretion and criteria of the AUP.

(h) Alternative Height in Relation to Boundary

As noted in section 4.0, the proposal utilises the ‘alternative’ height in relation to

boundary standard (“AHIRTB”) along the eastern boundary (adjacent to the property at

581 New North Road). This require assessment in terms of the matters of discretion at

H6.8.1(5), being:

(5) For new buildings and additions to buildings which do not comply with H6.6.6

Height in relation to boundary but comply with H6.6.7 Alternative height in

relation to boundary:

(a) Visual dominance effects;

(b) Attractiveness and safety of the street; and

(c) Overlooking and privacy.

The assessment criteria at H6.8.2(4) elaborate on these matters as set out below and

commented on as follows:

Visual dominance

(a) The extent to which buildings as viewed from the side or rear boundaries of

adjoining residential sites or developments are designed to reduce visual

dominance effects, taking into account:

(i) the planned urban built character of the zone;

(ii) the location, orientation and design of development; and

(iii) the physical characteristics of the site and the neighbouring site.

Comment:

The proposed building is consistent with the planned urban character of the

zone. It orients its main building volume towards the street and reduces its height

as it steps towards its northern boundary. It achieves compliance with the AHIRTB

standard through setting the building back from the eastern boundary, where it

provides for vehicle access and a landscaped yard to this boundary. It is noted

that the dwelling on the adjacent site is located proximate to the road boundary,

with a large rear yard which is considered to be less sensitive to the presence of

a new building on the subject Site.

Attractiveness and safety of the street

(b) The extent to which those parts of buildings located closest to the front

boundary achieve attractive and safe streets by:

(i) providing doors, windows and balconies facing the street;



(ii) optimising front yard landscaping;

(iii) providing safe pedestrian access to buildings from the street; and

(iv) minimising the visual dominance of garage doors as viewed from the

street.

Comment:

The proposed building has been designed with a focus towards its interface to

New North Road, with its main entry door and lobby area directly facing and

connecting to the street and providing for safe pedestrian access to the building.

Numerous apartment windows, associated with the south-end apartments in the

building, also face the street.

The front yard has been ‘optimised’ insofar as it provides for the required level

of setback (1.5m) and landscaped area, which will be attractively landscaped with

specimen trees that align with the vertical proportions of the building.

Overlooking and privacy

(c) The extent to which direct overlooking of a neighbour’s habitable room windows

and outdoor living space is minimised to maintain a reasonable standard of

privacy, including through the design and location of habitable room windows,

balconies or terraces, setbacks, or screening.

Comment:

The adjacent dwelling at 581 New North Road is located towards the front of its

own site, and as can be seen from the photographs at Annexure 2 (Images 6, 7

and 12), there are no windows that are visibly ‘habitable’ or unscreened that

could be affected by the proposed development. The windows of the

development are also set at an angle, such that outlook from within the

development is oriented to the north-east (as evident on Drawing A1304), and

the proposal incorporates opaque screening of the balustrades that face this

direction. Further minimisation of effects in this regard at a lower level will be

provided by ground level fencing.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the matters of discretion and

criteria of the AUP related to use of the AHIRTB standard.

(i) Location of vehicle access

The proposed vehicle access arrangement requires consent as it involves development of

a new vehicle access within a Vehicle Access Restriction area (Arterial Road) and a crossing

that will be located within 2m of the adjacent crossing to 581 New North Road (note, the

vehicle crossing will be in the same location as the existing eastern-most crossing serving

the Site). The relevant assessment criteria are set out in E27.8.2(8) and referenced in the

Traffic Assessment as follows:

(a) effects on the safe and efficient operation of the adjacent transport network

having regard to:



(i) the effect of the modification on visibility and safe sight distances;

(ii) existing and future traffic conditions including speed, volume, type, current

accident rate and the need for safe manoeuvring;

(iii) existing pedestrian numbers, and estimated future pedestrian numbers

having regard to the level of development provided for in this Plan; or

(iv) existing community or public infrastructure located in the adjoining road,

such as bus stops, bus lanes, footpaths and cycleways.

(b) effects on pedestrian amenity or the amenity of the streetscape, having regard

to:

(i) the effect of additional crossings or crossings which exceed the maximum

width; or

(ii) effects on pedestrian amenity and the continuity of activities and

pedestrian movement at street level in the Business – City Centre Zone,

Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone, Business – Town Centre Zone and

Business – Local Centre Zone.

(c) the practicality and adequacy of parking, loading and access arrangements

having regard to:

(i) site limitations, configuration of buildings and activities, user requirements

and operational requirements;

(ii) the ability of the access to accommodate the nature and volume of traffic

and vehicle types expected to use the access. This may include considering

whether a wider vehicle crossing is required to:

• comply with the tracking curve applicable to the largest vehicle

anticipated to use the site regularly;

• accommodate the traffic volumes anticipated to use the crossing,

especially where it is desirable to separate left and right turn exit lanes;

o the desirability of separating truck movements accessing a site from

customer vehicle movements;

• the extent to which reduced manoeuvring and parking space dimensions

can be accommodated because the parking will be used by regular users

familiar with the layout, rather than by casual users;

(iii) any use of mechanical parking installation such as car stackers or

turntables does not result in queuing beyond the site boundary; or

(iv) any stacked parking is allocated and managed in such a way that it does

not compromise the operation and use of the parking area.

The Traffic Assessment has advised that the proposed vehicle crossings are safe, due to

the level topography of the area, and sight lines available in both directions along New

North Road. With respect to the various matters to be assessed under the AUP, it advises

(at sections 6.1 and 6.2) that:

The reported crash history does not suggest a traffic safety problem in this

location.

Existing traffic and pedestrian numbers on New North Road will increase over

time as redevelopment occurs in the area and further afield. The vehicle access

to the Site has been designed to take these potential changes into account.



There is no community or public infrastructure within the road reserve that will

be affected by the proposed vehicle crossing.

It is noted that the proposal will rationalise the existing number and width of

crossings into one singular crossing of 5.5m which will enable the reinstatement

of much of the frontage of the Site to kerb and a level footpath, thus representing

a physical improvement on the current situation.

The Site currently has three vehicle crossings with a combined vehicle crossing

having a width in the order of 16m. The proposed vehicle crossing will reduce

the width of the vehicle crossing to 5.5m, hence improving the existing situation

in terms of pedestrians and streetscape.

The proposed vehicle crossing is in the same place as an existing vehicle crossing

which is closer than 2m to an existing vehicle crossing. This is an existing

situation and is one that will not change as a result of the proposal. Given the

driver/pedestrian inter-visibility available, the effect of this non-compliance is

considered to be less than minor.

The car parking and vehicle access arrangements are designed to an appropriate

standard and will operate with effects that are less than minor.

The proposed vehicle access arrangements are therefore consistent with the relevant

assessment criteria of the AUP.

(j) Conclusion

In summary, it is considered that the proposed redevelopment of the Site will be in

accordance with the relevant matters for discretion under the AUP, and furthermore that

no persons will be adversely affected by the various ancillary components of the proposal.

6.1.7 Special Circumstances

For “step 4”, s95A(9) provides that if public notification is precluded under s95A(5), as in

this case (or is otherwise not required in terms of s95A(8)), consideration must still be

given by the Council as to whether special circumstances exist that warrant public

notification.

‘Special circumstances’ have been defined by the Court of Appeal as those that are

unusual or exceptional, but they may be less than extraordinary or unique (Peninsula

Watchdog Group (Inc) v Minister of Energy [1996] 2 NZLR 529).

In Murray v Whakatane DC [1997] NZRMA 433, Elias J stated that circumstances which

are ‘special’ will be those which make notification desirable, notwithstanding the general

provisions excluding the need for notification. In determining what may amount to

‘special circumstances’ it is necessary to consider the matters relevant to the merits of

the application as a whole, not merely those considerations stipulated in the tests for

public or limited notification.



In Urban Auckland v Auckland Council [2015] NZHC 1382, Venning J identified a number

of additional potential grounds for special circumstances and found that special

circumstances did exist based on a combination of an error of law in the using the activity

status to determine notification, the public ownership of the applicant, the impact of

future developments and significant public interest and controversy.

It is considered that the proposed development is one that is contemplated through the

provisions of the AUP (and NESCS) as a restricted discretionary activity, and one that is

consistent with the expected and continued residential use of the Site, and the

development standards applicable to residential development in the THAB zone.

Furthermore, the proposal does not involve any of the controversial elements at issue in

Urban Auckland. The proposed development does not therefore give rise to special

circumstances, and public notification in this regard is not required.

6.1.8 Conclusion – Public Notification

In summary, the proposed development represents an appropriate residential

development of a THAB-zoned site that will not have more than minor adverse effects on

the surrounding environment. It is also considered that the proposal does not give rise

to special circumstances. It therefore meets the various tests under s95A of the RMA,

such that public notification of the application is not required.

6.2 LIMITED NOTIFICATION

6.2.1 Introduction

Section 95B of the RMA requires that if a Council does not publicly notify an application,

it must decide (in terms of ss 95E and 95F) if there are any affected persons in relation to

the activity.

6.2.2 Limited Notification Required or Excluded

Section 95B(2) provides that, as “step 1”, if the Council determines that certain people or

groups are affected, these persons/groups must be given limited notification, being:

affected protected customary rights groups;

affected customary marine title groups (in the case of an application for an

accommodated activity); and

an affected person under s95E to whom a statutory acknowledgement is made (if

the proposed activity is on or adjacent to, or may affect, land that is the subject

of a statutory acknowledgement).

None of the above provisions apply in this case. There are no known protected customary

rights groups (or customary marine title groups) in respect of this Site. In addition, a



review of Appendix 21 of the AUP confirms that the Site is not the subject of a statutory

acknowledgement.

For “step 2”, and where limited notification is not required under s95B(2), limited

notification is further precluded where:

a rule or NES precludes limited notification of the application; or

the application is for a controlled land use activity under a district plan.

As noted above, the AUP does include a rule that precludes limited notification (and public

notification) with respect to new dwellings that comply with the standards listed under

H6.4.1(A3), and new dwellings that comply with the AHIRTB standard. However, neither

are applicable in this case (due to the infringement of height and the height in relation to

boundary standard to the north).

The second provision does not apply, as the proposal is for a restricted discretionary

activity.

For “step 3”, s95B(7) determines the following persons to be affected persons:

in the case of a boundary activity, “determine in accordance with s 95E whether

an owner of an allotment with an infringed boundary is an affected person”.

The proposal is not a boundary activity.

Because limited notification is not required under s95B(2), nor excluded under s95B(7), it

is necessary to determine whether there are affected persons under s95B(8), and the

extent of potential effects on potentially affected parties, as discussed below.

6.2.3 Adverse Effects and Affected Persons

(a) Introduction

Section 95B(8) provides that “In the case of any other activity, determine whether a person

is an affected person in accordance with section 95E”. Section 95E states that:

(1) For the purpose of giving limited notification of an application for a resource

consent for an activity to a person under section 95B(4) and (9) (as applicable),

a person is an affected person if the consent authority decides that the

activity’s adverse effects on the person are minor or more than minor (but are

not less than minor).

(2) The consent authority, in assessing an activity’s adverse effects on a person for

the purpose of this section,—

(a) may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the person if a rule or a

national environmental standard permits an activity with that effect; and



(b) must, if the activity is a controlled activity or a restricted discretionary

activity, disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the person if the

effect does not relate to a matter for which a rule or a national

environmental standard reserves control or restricts discretion; and

(c) must have regard to every relevant statutory acknowledgement made in

accordance with an Act specified in Schedule 11.

(3) A person is not an affected person in relation to an application for a resource

consent for an activity if—

(a) the person has given, and not withdrawn, approval for the proposed

activity in a written notice received by the consent authority before the

authority has decided whether there are any affected persons; or

(b) the consent authority is satisfied that it is unreasonable in the

circumstances for the applicant to seek the person’s written approval.

(4) Subsection (3) prevails over subsection (1).

These are similar tests to those previously assessed in terms of ss 95A and 95D above,

where the potential adverse effects of the proposal have been considered in terms of the

relevant matters of discretion. In terms of assessing effects on adjacent persons, it is

noted that s95E does not specify or limit those persons who are to be assessed as

potentially affected persons (as a corollary to the exclusion of persons who own or occupy

adjacent land set out in s95D(a)). However, given the characteristics of the proposal, it is

considered that such persons would be those who are defined as “adjacent” at section

6.1.5(b) above, being:

581 New North Road (site to the east);

74 and 76 First Avenue (sites to the north/north-east);

1A Western Springs Road (reserve land forming part of School Reserve to the west

and north); and

560 and 562-566 New North Road (sites to the south on the opposite side of New

North Road).

The assessment of effects on adjacent persons is also subject to similar considerations

as set out for the preceding public notification assessment, in terms of defining the

‘permitted baseline’, relevant matters of discretion, and whether any trade competition

issues arise or whether written approvals have been provided.

(b) Assessment of Effects

As a restricted discretionary activity, and in accordance with s95E(2) as described above,

the assessment of the relevant aspects of the proposal is informed by the assessment

criteria relating to earthworks, trees, construction noise, potential contamination, new

dwellings, infringements of standards and transportation. These have been previously

considered as part of the public notification assessment in section 6.1 above. Due to the

particular assessment criteria relating to height and HIRTB rules, effects on the adjacent

sites at 581 New North Road and 74 & 76 First Avenue have been assessed, and are

considered to be less than minor. In particular:



The proposed building is well set back from 581 New North Road and is compliant

with the AHIRTB standard. Apartment living areas on the eastern side are oriented

to the north-east, and there are no open habitable areas associated with this

adjacent dwelling that would appear to be affected by the proposed building. The

dwelling is located towards the site frontage and features a large rear lawn area

that does not appear likely to be adversely affected by the proposed development

in any way.

The shading diagrams also demonstrate that any adverse shading effects will be

consistent with a compliant development on the Site. Because any shading will

be limited to afternoon periods, the open space for this dwelling will retain a

good level of solar access (when considered against the metric set out within

assessment criterion H5.8.2(5)(a) for the Mixed Housing Urban Zone).

The proposed building has a very large setback to the boundary with 76 First

Avenue, and the dwelling within that Site is located towards its own frontage,

further north, with vegetation in its rear yard (which can be discerned beyond the

Flame trees located on the Site, per Image 15 of Annexure 2) and that proposed

in the landscape concept plan for the proposal, providing further screening. The

HIRTB infringement to the northern boundary affects only a narrow section of the

building (2.3m) due to the large setback from the eastern boundary. The

relationship between the two sites is defined through the sections included in the

Architectural Drawings. The proposal also incorporates additional screening

elements to the balconies for Units 113, 213 and 313 to address potential

concerns relating to overlooking and/or privacy effects for this property.

Because this site is located to the north of the Site, no shading effects are created

by the proposed development, including during evening periods in the summer

solstice (where some shadowing would arise from a development located closer

to the northern boundary).

Activities associated with the common areas of the development, including the

pool, will be of a residential character, consistent with the purpose of the zone,

and will be subject to limitations regarding their use (as set out at section 3.1) to

ensure compliance with the noise standards under E25.6.2.

The proposed development is also setback from 74 First Avenue, which is located

to the immediate north-east of the Site. An existing small tree on the boundary

with 581 New North Road (refer Image 15 of Annexure 2) will not be affected by

the proposal. Similar comments regarding 76 First Avenue above regarding

shading and residential character and privacy considerations are also applicable

to this property.

The proposal is not considered to give rise to adverse effects for the adjacent reserve land

to the west and north, noting that the development will provide appropriate boundary

treatments, including landscaping, as well as a level of passive surveillance.



For those properties to the south, and on the opposite side of the road (560 and 562-566

New North Road), they will be separated from the development by over 20m. The proposal

will represent an expected form of development for the Site and similarly zoned

properties in the vicinity, and no adverse effects on these properties are therefore

envisaged to arise.

Overall it is considered that adverse effects on adjacent properties will be less than minor,

such that there are no adversely affected persons in terms of s95E(1).

6.2.4 Special Circumstances

Section 95B(10) also requires a Council to determine whether special circumstances exist

that warrant limited notification of the application to any other persons not already

determined to be eligible for limited notification. Should such special circumstances exist,

the consent authority must give limited notification to those persons.

As noted in section 6.1.3 above, with respect to s95A(9) of the RMA, the proposal is

considered to be an activity that is of an appropriate scale and one that is contemplated

through the provisions of the AUP as a restricted discretionary activity. It does not

therefore give rise to special circumstances such that limited notification to any other

person is required.

6.3 NON-NOTIFICATION

As a result of the above assessment provided in sections 6.1 and 6.2 above, it is

concluded that the application is able to be processed on a non-notified basis, without

the requirement for public notification to the wider community, or limited notification to

any person, because:

the proposal will not have more than minor adverse effects and so public

notification is not required;

the proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on any persons or

properties; and

the proposal does not give rise to any special circumstances that would require

public notification to any persons under s95A(9), or limited notification to any

other person (under s95B(10)).

7.0 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Section 104 of the RMA, which is subject to Part 2, lists those matters to which the Council

shall have regard. Section 104 provides, in particular, that:



(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions

received, the consent authority…must have regard to-

(a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the

activity; and

(b) Any relevant provisions of-

(i) A national policy statement:

(ii) A New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(iii) A regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(iv) A plan or proposed plan; and

(c) Any other matters the consent authority considers relevant and

reasonably necessary to determine the application.

(2) When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent

authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if

the plan permits an activity with that effect…

Section 104C provides as follows:

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent for a restricted

discretionary activity, a consent authority must consider only those matters

over which—

(a) a discretion is restricted in national environmental standards or other

regulations:

(b) it has restricted the exercise of its discretion in its plan or proposed plan.

(2) The consent authority may grant or refuse the application.

(3) However, if it grants the application, the consent authority may impose

conditions under section 108 only for those matters over which—

(a) a discretion is restricted in national environmental standards or other

regulations:

(b) it has restricted the exercise of its discretion in its plan or proposed plan.

As a restricted discretionary activity, the assessment of the proposal is primarily informed

by the design and character of the new building (including potential dominance, shading

and privacy effects), as well as ancillary considerations such as earthworks, trees, site

contamination and transportation aspects, and by reference to the relevant assessment

criteria of the AUP as discussed in the preceding section of this report which addresses

notification considerations.

7.2 SECTION 104(1)(a) - ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

7.2.1 Introduction

In a similar manner to s95D(b), s104(2) enables the Council to disregard an adverse effect

of an activity on the environment if a plan permits an activity with that effect. The

applicability and relevance of the permitted baseline in regard to this proposal has been

discussed at section 6.2 above.



The assessment at section 6.2 of this report has assessed the adverse effects of the

proposal in respect of the development of ancillary or technical aspects of the proposal

which are not excluded from a limited notification assessment in the same manner as the

apartment building itself. Based on the assessment provided therein, those aspects of the

proposal are not considered to give rise to adverse effects on the wider environment that

will be minor or more than minor.

7.2.2 Positive Effects

It is also considered that the proposal will result in positive effects, insofar as it provides

for a high standard of relatively affordable residential accommodation in one of

Auckland’s central established suburbs and will increase the overall housing stock within

the city. This is in accordance with the relevant national and regional policy statements

as set out in section 7.3 below.

7.3 SECTION 104(1)(b) - ASSESSMENT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS

7.3.1 National Environmental Standards

The NESCS is the only national environmental standard relevant to this application. One

of its key features is to provide national planning controls that direct the requirement for

consent or otherwise for activities on contaminated or potentially contaminated land. All

territorial authorities are required to give effect to and enforce the requirements of the

NESCS in accordance with their functions under the RMA relating to contaminated land.

The resource consent requirements under the provisions of the NESCS are set out in

section 4 of this report and the adverse effects of disturbing potentially contaminated soil

are assessed as being no more than minor in section 6.1.6 of this report, with reference

to the DSI prepared by WWLA. The DSI notes that to fulfil the requirements for a restricted

discretionary activity under Clause 10 of the NESCS, a SMP is required setting out how

both the remedial works and the bulk redevelopment earthworks will be managed and

how potential discharges will be mitigated. The SMP is attached as Annexure 13.

7.3.2 National Policy Statements

(a) National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (“NPS-UD”) came into force on

20 August 2020. While changes to the AUP in response to the directives under the NPS-

UD have not yet commenced, the objectives and policies of the NPS-UD are nevertheless

relevant to an assessment of a resource consent, where relevant to the matters of

discretion (for restricted discretionary activities) or more generally (for discretionary and

non-complying activities), and without limitation.



The NPS-UD applies to all local authorities that have all or part of an urban environment

within their district or region (i.e. tier 1, 2 and 3 local authorities), and to planning

decisions (including resource consent decisions) by any local authority that affect an

urban environment. For the purpose of the NPS-UD, Auckland is a Tier 1 urban

environment and Auckland Council is a Tier 1 local authority.

Based on the Council’s Practice and Guidance Note,7 it is understood that Objectives 1, 2,

4, 5, 7 and 8, and Policies 1, 6 and 9 (in part) and 11 are presently applicable. In particular,

the proposal is considered to be well aligned with Objective 1 which states:

New Zealand has well-functioning urban environments that enable all people and

communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for

their health and safety, now and into the future.

Accordingly, while the proposal does not rely on the provisions or directions set out in

the NPS-UD, it is considered that it will assist to give effect to this document.

(b) Other national policy statements

Regard has also been given to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission,

and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. The Site does not involve any electricity

transmission issues and is not considered to form part of the coastal environment.

Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to raise any issues related to either of these

national policy statements.

7.3.3 Regional Policy Statement

The Regional Policy Statement (“RPS”), as included within the AUP, identifies the strategic

direction for the Auckland Region. The RPS directs urban development within existing

metropolitan areas, through the intensification of these areas that are well served by

transport infrastructure, and the application of the THAB Zone to the subject Site gives

effect to the RPS at a local level.

The key provisions of the RPS are not considered to be called into question by the

proposed development, as it involves the development of a residential zone, within an

established residential area of Auckland, that provides for a higher level of intensification,

and the proposal is consistent with the flexible provisions of this zone. It is also located

directly adjacent to the main thoroughfare of New North Road which connects the

Morningside local centre to the west and Kingsland to the east, and other centres further

beyond. There is ready access to public transport by way of bus stops located just 100m

to the west, and the Morningside railway station is 360m away. The Kingsland train station

is 600m to the east.

7 http://www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/regulations/practice-notes (RC 3.3.12)



The proposal is therefore considered to be entirely in accordance with the broad strategic

objectives of the RPS.

7.3.4 Auckland Unitary Plan – Objectives and Policies

Having regard to the matters for which consent is required under the AUP, the objectives

and policies relating to earthworks, contaminated land, development in the THAB zone

and transportation are considered to be relevant to this application. These are discussed

in the following sections.

(a) Earthworks

The relevant objective and policies in respect of earthworks under Chapter E12 are as

follows:

E12.2. Objectives

(1) Land disturbance is undertaken in a manner that protects the safety of people

and avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects on the environment.

E12.3. Policies

(1) Avoid where practicable, and otherwise, mitigate, or where appropriate,

remedy adverse effects of land disturbance on areas where there are natural

and physical resources that have been scheduled in the Plan in relation to

natural heritage, Mana Whenua, natural resources, coastal environment,

historic heritage and special character.

(2) Manage the amount of land being disturbed at any one time, to:

(a) avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse construction noise, vibration, odour,

dust, lighting and traffic effects;

…

(3) Enable land disturbance necessary for a range of activities undertaken to

provide for people and communities social, economic and cultural well-being,

and their health and safety.

…

(5) Design and implement earthworks with recognition of existing environmental

site constraints and opportunities, specific engineering requirements, and

implementation of integrated water principles.

(6) Require that earthworks are designed and undertaken in a manner that

ensures the stability and safety of surrounding land, buildings and structures.

Having regard to the assessment of earthworks provided in section 6.1.6 above, and

within the Engineering Report, it is considered that the proposed earthworks are in

accordance with the above objectives and policies. In particular, the earthworks are

necessary to create level building platforms and access areas and will be managed to

address potential erosion and sediment discharge effects in accordance with the Council’s

guideline document that addresses this, and does not give rise to the matters sought to

be addressed through the district and regional objectives and policies.



(b) Trees

The relevant objectives and policies in respect of trees on Open Space-zoned land are set

out in Chapter E16 as follows:

E16.2. Objectives

(1) Trees in open space zones that contribute to cultural, amenity, landscape and

ecological values are protected.

(2) There is an increase in the quality and extent of tree cover in open space zones,

particularly within areas identified for intensified living.

E16.3. Policies

(1) Encourage ongoing maintenance of trees to enhance open space zones, while

recognising existing constraints and functional requirements of the site.

(2) Manage trees within open space zones to protect their cultural, amenity,

landscape and ecological values, while acknowledging that multiple uses occur

in open space areas.

(3) Encourage the use of indigenous trees and vegetation for planting within open

space zones, where appropriate, to recognise and reflect cultural, amenity,

landscape and ecological values.

Having regard to the assessment provided at section 6.1.6 and that set out within the

Arboricultural Assessment, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with these

provisions, noting in particular that:

The undertaking of works within the dripline of the English Oak and Pohutukawa

in accordance with arboricultural recommendations will protect the cultural,

amenity, landscape and ecological values of those trees.

The provision for six replacement trees as mitigation for the removal of the

existing trees in School Reserve will be more conducive to co-habitation harmony

with the other mature trees and would be allowed to develop with fewer

restrictions from the adjacent building.

The replacement trees are of indigenous species and will better reflect the values

of the reserve than the predominantly Acmena trees along the boundary.

(c) Construction Noise

The relevant objective and policies in respect of construction noise are set out in Chapter

E25 as follows:

E25.2 Objectives

…

(4) Construction activities that cannot meet noise and vibration standards are

enabled while controlling duration, frequency and timing to manage adverse

effects.



E25.3 Policies

…

(10) Avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration from

construction, maintenance and demolition activities while having regard to:

(a) the sensitivity of the receiving environment; and

(b) the proposed duration and hours of operation of the activity; and

(c) the practicability of complying with permitted noise and vibration

standards.

The proposed construction works are considered to be in accordance with the above

objective and policy, noting that these provisions seek to enable such activities, while

ensuring controls over the duration, frequency and timing to manage adverse effects.

Such measures are set out in the CNVMP attached to the CNVA.

(d) Contaminated Land

The relevant objective and policies in respect of contaminated land are set out in Chapter

E30 as follows:

E30.2 Objective

(1) The discharge of contaminants from contaminated land into air, or into water,

or onto or into land are managed to protect the environment and human health

and to enable land to be used for suitable activities now and in the future.

E30.3. Policies

(1) Identify and record the details of land containing elevated levels of

contaminants in a public register.

(2) Require any use or development of land containing elevated levels of

contaminants resulting in discharges to air, land or water to manage or

remediate the contamination to a level that:

(a) allows contaminants to remain in the ground/groundwater, where it can

be demonstrated that the level of residual contamination is not reasonably

likely to pose a significant adverse effect on human health or the

environment; and

(b) avoids adverse effects on potable water supplies; and

(c) avoids, remedies or mitigates significant adverse effects on ecological

values, water quality, human health and amenity values; while

taking into account all of the following:

(d) the physical constraints of the site and operational practicalities;

(e) the financial implications of the investigation, remediation, management

and monitoring options;

(f) the use of best practice contaminated land management, including the

preparation and consideration of preliminary and detailed site

investigations, remedial action plans, site validation reports and site

management plans for the identification, monitoring and remediation of

contaminated land; and



(g) whether adequate measures are in place for the transport, disposal and

tracking of contaminated soil and other contaminated material removed

from a site to prevent adverse effects on the environment.

Having regard to the assessment in respect of contamination provided in section 6.1.6

above, and within the Contamination Report (and SMP), it is considered that the proposed

development can be undertaken safely and in accordance with the above objective and

policies (noting that policy E30.3(1) does not apply in this instance). In particular, the

Contamination Report describes best practice contaminated land management for the

Site, incorporating the preparation of a PSI as well as a SMP which provides for the

monitoring and remediation of the Site as part of the proposed works, and how these will

be carried out in accordance with MfE guidelines.

(e) Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone

As noted previously, the Site is located in the THAB zone under the AUP. This zone is

described at Clause H6.1 as follows:

The Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone is a high-intensity

zone enabling a greater intensity of development than previously provided for. This

zone provides for urban residential living in the form of terrace housing and

apartments. The zone is predominantly located around metropolitan, town and local

centres and the public transport network to support the highest levels of

intensification.

The purpose of the zone is to make efficient use of land and infrastructure, increase

the capacity of housing and ensure that residents have convenient access to services,

employment, education facilities, retail and entertainment opportunities, public open

space and public transport. This will promote walkable neighbourhoods and increase

the vitality of centres.

The zone provides for the greatest density, height and scale of development of all the

residential zones. Buildings are enabled up to five, six or seven storeys in identified

Height Variation Control areas, depending on the scale of the adjoining centre, to

achieve a transition in height from the centre to lower scale residential zones. This

form of development will, over time, result in a change from a suburban to urban

built character with a high degree of visual change.

Standards are applied to all buildings and resource consent is required for all

dwellings and for other specified buildings and activities in order to:

achieve the planned urban built character of the zone;

achieve attractive and safe streets and public open spaces;

manage the effects of development on adjoining sites, including visual amenity,

privacy and access to daylight and sunlight; and

achieve high quality on-site living environments.



The resource consent requirements enable the design and layout of the development

to be assessed; recognising that the need to achieve a quality design is increasingly

important as the scale of development increases.

…

The relevant objectives for this zone are set out below:

H6.2. Objectives

(1) Land adjacent to centres and near the public transport network is efficiently

used to provide high-density urban living that increases housing capacity and

choice and access to centres and public transport.

(2) Development is in keeping with the areas planned urban built character of

predominantly five, six or seven storey buildings in identified areas, in a variety

of forms.…

(3) Development provides quality on-site residential amenity for residents and the

street.

The proposed development will be consistent with these objectives for the reasons that:

The Site, and those properties adjacent and along New North Road, have been

zoned THAB to provide for high-density urban living in a manner that provides

for increased housing capacity and choice, with excellent access to the

Morningside and Kingsland village centres, as well as the bus routes that run

along New North Road, and the Kingsland and Morningside train stations. The

proposal is entirely consistent with, and gives effect to, the overall development

strategy set out within Objective H6.2(1).

The proposed buildings are of an appropriate height (being five storeys), bulk

and form that is consistent with buildings generally anticipated for the THAB zone

and within the Site.

The proposal will provide quality on-site residential amenity for residents,

through a combination of excellent outlook, individual balconies, and well-

appointed communal areas and storage facilities. The building has been designed

to a high architectural and urban design standard that will also improve the visual

amenity values of the street.

The relevant policies under H6.3, as referred to in H6.8.2(4) above, have been assessed

in section 61.6 above, and the proposal is considered to be consistent with these for the

reasons set out therein.

(e) Transportation

The relevant matters for which consents are required in respect of Transportation have

been addressed in section 6.1.6 above. The following objective and policy are also

applicable under s104(1)(b):

E27.2 Objectives

(5) Pedestrian safety and amenity along public footpaths is prioritised.



E27.3 Policies

(20) Require vehicle crossings and associated access to be designed and located to

provide for safe, effective and efficient movement to and from sites and

minimise potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists on the

adjacent road network.

Having regard to the assessment provided at section 6.1.6, it is considered that the

proposal is in accordance with these provisions, whereby the proposed vehicle crossing

will provide for safe and efficient vehicle access as well as providing for improved

pedestrian movements past the Site and to and from the apartment building itself.

(f) Conclusion

Overall, it is concluded that the proposal will be consistent with, and not contrary to, the

relevant objectives and policies of the AUP.

7.3.5 Auckland Unitary Plan – Matters of Discretion

As noted in section 4.2, the proposal involves exceedances of the various coverage

standards of the AUP, as well involving a technical infringement of the outlook space

standard. While these are not consent matters per se, for completeness these is assessed

against the relevant criteria for such infringements, being the same criteria as set out in

respect of height and height to boundary exceedances discussed in section 6.2 above,

and which are:

(a) any policy which is relevant to the standard;

(b) the purpose (if stated) of the standard and whether that purpose will still be

achieved if consent is granted;

(c) any specific matter identified in the relevant rule or any relevant matter of

discretion or assessment criterion associated with that rule;

(d) any special or unusual characteristic of the site which is relevant to the

standard;

(e) the effects of the infringement of the standard; and

(f) where more than one standard will be infringed, the effects of all infringements

considered together.

The assessment criteria at H6.8.2(11) – (13) also identify the relevant policies (for

infringements of building coverage, landscape area and outlook space) with reference to

item (a), being Policies H6.3(1), (2), (4) – (6).

These matters are addressed as follows:



Relevant Policies

The relevant policies have been discussed at section 6.1.6 above, and the proposal is

considered to be consistent with them, for the reasons contained therein.

Purpose of the standard

The purpose of the building coverage standard is stated at H6.6.11 as being:

to manage the extent of buildings on a site to achieve the planned urban character

of buildings surrounded by open space.

The purpose of the landscape coverage standard is stated at H6.6.12 as being:

to provide for quality living environments consistent with the planned urban

built character of buildings surrounded by open space; and

to create a landscaped urban streetscape character within the zone.

For the reasons discussed above, the proposal is considered to address these stated

purposes. In particular, the proposal will achieve a planned urban character, while

setbacks from the boundaries of the Site will enable implementation of a landscape

concept plan that achieves a sense of open space, particularly at the rear of the Site where

a new garden is proposed, and will visually integrate with School Reserve to the north and

west.

The purpose of the outlook space standard is stated at H6.6.13 as being:

to ensure a reasonable standard of visual privacy between habitable rooms of

different buildings, on the same or adjacent sites;

in combination with the daylight control, manage visual dominance effects

within a site by ensuring that habitable rooms have an outlook and sense of

space.

The proposal includes outdoor living areas for each apartment, which reduces the overall

mass of the building and provides residents with outdoor space and outlook from the

interior of the building (as well as to the view beyond) and thus a sense of space. The

angled orientation of the main living room window also means that the outlook is directed

away from the adjacent dwelling at 581 New North Road, thus ensuring maintenance of a

reasonable standard of visual privacy for this property.

Effects of the infringement of the standard (including for neighbouring properties)

The excess of building coverage and shortfall of landscape area will not give rise to any

significant adverse effects, given the set back of the building from its boundaries with its

most sensitive receivers (i.e. 581 New North Road and 76 First Avenue), while fencing and

landscaping will also screen inter-property views at ground and first floors and will also

ensure that the Site has a landscaped presence when viewed from nearby properties.



Any unusual site characteristics

As discussed in section 6.1.6, the Site is unusual, if not untypical, in terms of its sloping

nature towards its north. This does not unduly influence the stated infringements, except

to the extent that the creation of a level outdoor courtyard at the rear of the Site results

in a further technical infringement of the building coverage standard due to the height of

its northern end above natural ground level.

Summary

Overall, the proposed infringements are considered to be in accordance with the matters

of discretion and criteria of the AUP and will not adversely impact on the surrounding

environment.

7.4 SECTION 104(1)(c) - OTHER MATTERS

Section 104(1)(c) allows the consideration of any other matter that the Council considers

relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. In this case, and having

regard to the restrictions imposed on the Council’s assessment under s104C (below), it

is considered that there are no other matters that can be taken into account in the

assessment of this proposal.

7.5 SECTION 104C – RESTRICTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY

As a restricted discretionary activity, and as noted in section 7.1 above, s104C of the RMA

states that the Council may grant or refuse consent to the proposal, and if granted impose

conditions under ss 108 and 108AA.

Having considered the proposal in terms of the relevant rules, assessment criteria and

objectives and policies of the AUP, and the relevant regional policy documents in terms

of s104(1)(b), it is considered appropriate for consent to be granted pursuant to s104C

of the RMA, subject to conditions.

7.6 SECTIONS 108 & 108AA – CONDITIONS

The applicant undertakes to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the

proposed development on the environment, including those effects likely to arise during

the construction period. Accordingly, the applicant accepts the imposition of the Council’s

standard conditions of consent relating to the matters for which land use consent is

required in this case (e.g., compliance with approved plans, management of earthworks,

surveyor certification) and the recommendations of the specialist assessments provided

with this application, and to reflect permitted activity standards associated with



construction activity (such as noise and vibration limits and tree works), pursuant to ss

108 and 108AA of the RMA.

It is also understood that the development of new dwellings will attract the requirement

for a development contribution in accordance with the Council’s current Development

Contributions Policy, as well as water connection charges by Watercare Services Limited.

Advice notes are anticipated in this regard.

7.7 SECTION 125 – CONSENT EXPIRY

Section 125 of the RMA provides for resource consents to be valid for the timeframe

specified on the consent, or, if no timeframe is specified, for five years. In relation to this

proposal, the applicant seeks the standard timeframe of five years to give effect to the

resource consent once granted.

7.8 PART 2 – PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE RMA

Section 104(1) of the RMA requires the consideration of any resource consent application

to have regard to specific factors, subject to Part 2 (“Purpose and Principles”). The purpose

of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Sustainable management means the use, development and protection of natural and

physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide

for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while:

sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet

the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and safeguarding the life-

supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; avoiding, remedying or mitigating

any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Case law8 relating to the applicability of Part 2 to resource consent decisions has

suggested that in most instances there is no need to refer back to Part 2 in determining

an application for resource consent. The implication of this decision is that, when

decision-makers are considering an application for resource consent under s104(1) of the

RMA, they would generally only need to have recourse to Part 2 of the RMA if the relevant

statutory planning documents have not been prepared in a manner that appropriately

reflects Part 2. It may however be appropriate to refer to Part 2 even where the planning

documents have been competently prepared with a coherent set of policies.

In this case, the proposal is considered to merit the grant of consent by reference to the

relevant lower order plan, being the AUP, and to the other matters to which regard must

be had under s104, and no reliance on Part 2 is therefore necessary to address any

overarching considerations not otherwise addressed by the AUP. Accordingly, it is not

8 R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2018] NZCA 316



considered that the AUP provisions are invalid, incomplete or uncertain in respect of the

proposal.

8.0 CONCLUSION

The applicant seeks a land use resource consent to construct a new 67-unit apartment

building at 583, 585 & 587-589 New North Road, Kingsland.

The proposal aligns well with respect to the objectives and policies of the AUP for

development within the THAB zone and is consistent with the design-related requirements

for the development of new buildings and dwellings in this zone, and those relating to

the management of earthworks and other ancillary aspects arising from the proposal.

Notwithstanding that the development will be of greater residential density than

surrounding dwellings, the proposal is in general accordance with the standards for the

zone and the future environment envisaged along New North Road by the AUP and is of

an appropriate and high standard of design that will integrate well with the particular

characteristics of the local environment and its likely future context.

The granting of the resource consent for the proposal would provide for appropriate

residential development with less than minor adverse effects on surrounding sites and on

the wider locality.

Therefore, and in accordance with ss 95A and 95B of the RMA, it is considered that the

Council is able to process this application without public or limited notification on any

parties, and can grant consent under s104C, subject to appropriate conditions.

ANNEXURE 1

Records of Title

ANNEXURE 2

Aerial and Site Photographs

ANNEXURE 3

Site Survey Plan

ANNEXURE 4

Plaza Properties – Examples

ANNEXURE 4A

Proposed Rules – Communal Area

ANNEXURE 4B

Acoustic Assessment – Pool Area

ANNEXURE 5

Pre-application Consenting Memo

ANNEXURE 6

Architectural Drawings

ANNEXURE 7

Landscape Concept Plan

ANNEXURE 7A

Arboricultural Assessment

ANNEXURE 7B

Tree Asset Owner Approval

ANNEXURE 8

Traffic Impact Assessment

ANNEXURE 8A

Additional Traffic Assessment

ANNEXURE 8B

Further Traffic Comment (25 May 2021)

ANNEXURE 9

Waste Management Plan

ANNEXURE 10

Engineering and Infrastructure Report

ANNEXURES 10A – E

Engineering Report Attachments

ANNEXURE 10F

Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment

ANNEXURE 10G

Addendum to Construction Noise and Vibration

Assessment

ANNEXURE 11

Geotechnical Assessment Report

ANNEXURE 11A

Additional Assessment - Groundwater

ANNEXURE 12

Contamination Assessment Report

ANNEXURE 13

Site Management Plan (Ground Contamination)

ANNEXURE 14

Development at 841-845 New North Road

plaza properties limited residential development – 583

Documents