before the environment court i mua i te kooti taiao 0 …
TRANSCRIPT
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT
I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA
Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 238
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act
BETWEEN ANDREW FITZGERALD
(ENV-2018-CHC-25)
Appellant
AND KAIKOURA DISTRICT COUNCIL
Respondent
ALAN AND CHRISTINE GULLEFORD
Applicants
Court: Environment Judge J E Borthwick Environment Commissioner C J Wilkinson Environment Commissioner ACE Leijnen
Hearing: at Christchurch on 4 December 2018
Appearances: A Fitzgerald in person A Schulte for respondent A and C Gulleford in person
Date of Decision: 14 December 2018
Date of Issue: 14 December 2018
INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT
A: The appeal is upheld in part and directions made on the conditions of consent.
B: Costs are reserved.
REASONS
Fitzgerald v KDC - Decision
\
2
Introduction
[1] Mr Andrew Fitzgerald appealed a decision by Kaikoura District Council to grant
resource consent to his neighbours, Mr and Mrs Alan and Christine Gulleford, to
subdivide their property and erect a second dwelling on the newly created site.
[2] Mr Fitzgerald would prefer the application in its entirety to be declined, but says if
the subdivision decision is upheld then any new dwelling should be limited to a single
storeyed house.
[3] The appeal raises an interesting legal issue: under the Kaikoura District Plan can
land use consent be granted for a dwelling in the absence of any building plans? The
District Council says that it can, a decision in respect of which we disagree for the reasons
which follow.
The application
[4] In May 2017, the Gullefords instructed their surveyor to lodge an application for
subdivision consent. The application was to subdivide the property located at 29 Bayview
St, Kaikoura,1 into two sites. The two new sites would comprise Lot 1, being a 458 m2
site containing an existing house and Lot 2, a 479 m2 site on which it is proposed to retain
an existing "cottage" and to construct a new house.
[5] To the extent that the application for subdivision addresses the new dwelling, it
was to note that the effects on the locality would include those associated with an
additional dwelling. It was not anticipated these effects would be of significance.2
Beyond that, the Gullefords do not state in the application that they were seeking land
use consent for the new dwelling. Indeed, no building plans were attached.
[6] Following correspondence with the District Council, in October 2017 an amended
application was lodged for a two-lot subdivision together with land use consent
authorising the existing dwelling on Lot 1 and consents to retain the existing "cottage"
and to construct a new dwelling on Lot 2.3 Again, no building plans were attached.
~ ~ r Lot 1 DP 3677. ·0 ;: ;2 Bonis, EiC Attachment A, application lodged by Gilbert Haymes & Associates Ltd dated 10 May 2017. '\ 1/ 3 District Council, memorandum dated 29 November 2018.
,<$ttl' .«4 / '.E~URT 0'( \t·
3
[7] Neighbours south of the site gave their approval to the amended application.4 Mr
Fitzgerald, who lives at 27 Bayview St, declined to give his approval and made a
submission opposing the application.
[8] We digress slightly to record that it does not appear that the planner engaged by
the District Council to report on the application, nor the Hearing Commissioners whose
decision is the subject of this appeal, were provided a copy of the amended application.
This omission had flow-on effects with the incorrect subdivision plans being referenced
in conditions. 5 Upon learning of this, counsel for the District Council, Mr Schulte, promptly
drew this to the court's attention and addressed the implications arising from the omission
in his submissions. We are grateful for his attentiveness to the matter.
[9] On this occasion, we find the omission is of no moment. We accept the District
Council notified the amended application6 and that Mr Fitzgerald's submission was in
response to the same. We further accept that both the planning witness, Mr M Bonis,
and the Hearing Commissioners were aware of the full scope of the application,
notwithstanding the referencing error in the conditions.
The law
[10] Section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (URMA") provides that
when considering the application for resource consent and any submissions received,
the court must, subject to Part 2, have regard (relevantly) to:
• any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;
• the relevant provisions of the Kaikoura District Plan; and
• any other matter we consider relevant and reasonably necessary to
determine the application.
[11] We have not had regard to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement as we
understand its provisions have been given effect to in this operative District Plan?
~f[fff'"< \
N~ \ 4 Bonis, EiC at [11].
~ ~) 5 District Council, opening submissions at [19].
\ if) 6 Exhibit District Council 1.
\~~' c~-t/ 7 Bonis, EiC at [20]. 'I/}- .\v _£~URTO~ \
4
The permitted baseline
[12] Section 104(2) further provides that 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 a national environmental standard or the plan permits an activity with
that effect.
[13] The permitted baseline is of considerable moment in this case, as it was applied
by the Hearing Commissioners and by Mr Bonis, on appeal, to disregard nearly all the
potential effects on Mr Fitzgerald's amenity that are consequential upon building a new
dwelling on the neighbouring site.B To be clear, the effects disregarded were those of a
new dwelling otherwise complying with the bulk and location standards in the District
Plan. As we will shortly come to, these effects may be, but not necessarily, the same as
the effects of a dwelling on a site that complies with the minimum site size.
[14] On this occasion, we decline to apply the permitted baseline. Having heard from
registered valuer, Mr G Maxwell, we find that it is fanciful to discount the effects of the
proposed dwelling on Lot 2 on the basis that the existing dwelling at 29 Bayview St is
demolished and a new house constructed at or near the location of the proposed
dwelling.
[15] Mr Maxwell's evidence that there are many vacant sections available for sale in
Kaikoura with better views than 29 Bayview St. Vacant sections in the area are selling
in the range of $150,000 to high $200,000s. Prime sites located in the nearby Seaview
subdivision - with unobstructed views of the mountains and the sea - are selling between
$220,000 to $250,000.
[16] Mr Maxwell valued the existing property in the range of $300,000 to $600,000.
He refined this valuation during cross-examination to be in the range of $320,000 to
$380,000, with the value of the house being worth at least $100,000 to $120,000.
Demolishing the house would reduce the improved value of the land by the same amount.
5
While the owner may, for various reasons, be motivated to do this, removing $100,000
to $120,000 of value from this ex-State house property would not, in Mr Maxwell's
opinion, be financially prudent. We find Mr Maxwell's evidence compelling and indeed
supported by the fact that the Gullefords are to retain the ex-State house. 9
[17] We asked Mr M Bonis if the court were to decline to exercise its discretion
pursuant to s 104(2), how this would impact on his opinion? He advised that if we did
not apply the permitted baseline it would impact "substantially", as he had disregarded
the effects of a "substantial two-storeyed" building on the parent aliotment.1O Indeed he
had put "quite a bit of weight" on the application of the baseline. Mr Bonis said he would
then need to turn his mind to the outcomes for the Residential A zone as set out in the
objectives and policies of the District Plan. If the effects of the new dwelling are to be
considered, in the absence of any building plans, he would be less sure of the outcomes
under the District Plan's provisions. Absent the building plans, any assessment would
be "q ualitative".11
Status of the application
[18] The land use and subdivision applications are restricted discretionary activities.
[19] As such, the consent authority - or this court on appeal - may grant or refuse the
application. When considering a restricted discretionary activity, the court must only
consider those matters over which the consent authority has restricted the exercise of its
discretion in the District Plan (s 1 04C(1 )(a)).
[20] Both the subdivision and the new and existing dwellings are restricted
discretionary activities, as is the land use consent sought in relation to the "cottage". In
each case the District Plan has restricted the discretion to the particular non-compliance;
that is subdivision and land use of sites less than the minimum site size and second, the
encroachment by the "cottage" into the separation distance from an internal boundary.
The District Plan gives no further guidance by way of assessment matters, to inform the
exercise of the discretion.
,/:'-';"Ai J.t" . • /' \: .. \;)1->' -" ,. f i ), .
6
[21] We intuit residential development on undersized sites or within the internal side
boundary may have an effect on the character and amenity of the area. Absent any other
guidance in the exercise of the discretion, we fall back on the relevant provisions of the
District Plan to inform the purpose of the density and boundary rules for this zone. The
correctness of this approach was confirmed by the District Council planning witness, Mr
Bonis. 12
[22] In relation to the subdivision, an inquiry into compliance with the bulk and location
standards of the District Plan is relevant where it seeks to establish whether there is a
building platform for a future dwelling having regard to matters that are relevant to the
restricted discretion (rule 13.11.2.1). Mr Bonis elaborated, saying this involved both
compliance with the standards (colloquially referred to in evidence as "the numbers"),
together with the environment anticipated in the District PlanY Given the limitation on
the discretion, and the objective and policy relevant to developing undersized sites, we
take no issue with this approach in relation to the application for subdivision.14
[23] That said, we understand Mr Bonis and the Hearing Commissioners before him,
restricted their assessment of the future dwelling by likewise satisfying themselves that
the future dwelling on Lot 2 could comply with the balance of the standards for permitted
activities. It may be this approach was taken because the adverse effects had already
been disregarded under the permitted baseline, but it was not clear.
[24] Where the assessment of the future dwelling is limited to the ability of a future
dwelling to comply with the bulk and location rules, this gives rise to two potential
problems. First, the subdivision and land use consent applications may become
conflated, with the land use assessment being unresponsive to the plan policy that
pertains to dwellings on undersized sites. Indeed, we could find no discussion of the
most relevant objectives and policies in the decision of the Hearing Commissioners. We
observe that for the land use consent, we are not actually concerned about the ability of
a future dwelling to meet the bulk and location standards. If this was in issue, other rules
in the District Plan would also be engaged. 15 Second, the approach also risks treating
the future dwelling as if it was a permitted activity i.e a dwelling on an undersized site is
< "":~\ ""- <.¢-\ } .... > 12 Transcript at 63.
\13 Transcript at 61-62.
. P. ~ ~~2114 See in particular, objective 13.7.1 and associated provisions. ~ :;t 15 See Transcript at 64 where Mr Bonis accepts that at the time the land use consent application is being
\~~ " ""to' considered, the bulk and location standards had fallen away . • 0,.:., ... ..~
". <':111' --- - ,,"«- " ", COURT 0" ,".,
7
permitted subject to compliance with all other bulk and location standards. Condition [2]
of the land use consent is suggestive of this. The condition states that the future dwelling
on Lot 2 is to comply with the performance standards in the District Plan or obtain
resource consent to address any additional matters of non-compliance. The treatment
of a restricted discretionary activity in this way cannot be right in law.
[25] We turn next to address the District Plan.
District Plan
Subdivision application
[26] We will not set out the subdivision provisions and methods. They are numerous
and the majority of which are not relevant to the appeal. Of those referred to us, objective
13.7.1 and associated policies are most pertinent. Objective 13.7.1 is:
To ensure subdivisions are designed and constructed to create a pleasant amenity, so that
solar energy is taken advantage of and so that erosion is avoided.
[27] Despite its phrasing, the objective is not solely concerned with the amenity
aspects of solar energy and erosion. Policy 13.7.2.2 clarifies what is intended: "to
encourage subdivision design and construction which results in the creation of pleasant
environments". The Anticipated Environmental Results, at 13.9 of the District Plan, list
the environmental results expected upon subdivision, which includes a pattern of
subdivision which complements the character of the land uses in the area and second,
the provision of suitable zoned land to meet the foreseeable residential needs of
Kaikoura. In the Residential A Zone, the minimum site size upon subdivision is 500 m2
(performance standard 13.12.1) with any non-compliance with the performance standard
being a restricted discretionary activity (rule 13.11.2). As noted, the consent authority
discretion is restricted to the matter over which it reserved control, i.e minimum site size.
[28] While Mr Fitzgerald opposes the grant of subdivision, he produced no evidence
to challenge the effects of the proposed subdivision, having regard to the provisions of
the District Plan. As discussed with him during the hearing, in bringing this appeal he
may have been labouring under the misunderstanding that either resource consent could
not be sought for this subdivision (i.e for two sites less than the minimum site size) or
alternatively, consent can only be granted with his approval. Both propositions are wrong
8
in law.
Assessment of subdivision
[29] Lot 2 is of a sufficient size to accommodate a second dwelling that complies with
the balance of the bulk and location standards. Having undertaken a site visit, including
to the sites of other similar subdivisions, 16 we are satisfied that the density of development
that will ensue would be in keeping with the character of the locality.
Land use consents
[30] Land use consents are required for the following activities:
(a) retrospective consent for setback intrusions associated with the "cottage"
on Lot 2 (rule 18.7.11);
(b) consent for dwellings on two undersized sites (rule 18.7.9).
[31] Bayview St is located on the lower hills of the Residential A Zone. The zone is
described as having medium residential density, with levels of amenity that correspond
to the same. 17 Subject to compliance with the performance standards, residential
activities are permitted within this zone. 18
[32] Objective 18.2.1 follows:
To provide an essentially low density, small scale residential environment within the
Kaikoura urban area with a dominance of open space and planting over buildings, and
where the pleasantness and amenity of the residential area is maintained and enhanced.
[33] The objective is implemented by policy 18.2.2 which provides:
1. To enable the establishment of non-residential activities in residential areas within
Kaikoura urban area, in circumstances where:
" Sr;:\I. Up t, I\.,'<'v '. 1/<-"'\ ___________ _
16 We include Hastings and Bayview Streets and Fyffe Avenue. ~ 17 District Plan, 18.5 Zone Description.
;;; 18 District Plan, rule 18.6 1.;,/
\ -;:'; 'V \ ~.>i.~" '"'---...---:: A;\ :tli}", ~ ,,:;\,<., ~ .,.::,Oum O>,'
~----- ~. ,,- -
9
- the predominant use of the site remains residential; and
- the activity is compatible in terms of its potential effects on those of a residential
nature.
2. To maintain the amenity of residential areas by ensuring sufficient on-site parking
and manoeuvring areas for vehicles are established.
3. To ensure that the design and siting of development (building height, building
coverage, recession lines, setbacks and provision of outdoor living areas) is
controlled so that:
a. development will not unreasonably deny neighbouring properties sunlight,
daylight, views or;
b. ample on-site provision of outdoor living space oriented to the sun exists; and
c. an open and attractive scene exists; and
d. a character and scale of buildings and open space is maintained which is
compatible with the anticipated residential environment.
4. To ensure noise and lighting spill do not adversely affect the amenity enjoyed on
residential sites.
[34] As previously noted, in the absence of any assessment matters as may be
relevant to the restriction of the discretion, we have had regard to those objectives and
policies addressing character and amenity. As the policy makes clear the effects on
neighbouring properties are relevant. In particular, neighbours are not to be
unreasonably denied access to sunlight, daylight and views (18.2.2.3a). The District
Council effectively circumvented this important policy by applying the permitted baseline
to disregard effects.
[35] Mr Fitzgerald's evidence is instructive of the importance of the policy. He is
concerned that a two-storeyed building positioned in the location shown in the subdivision
plan, will have an adverse effect on his south facing view and access to sunlight,
particularly during the winter months. He explained that the view of importance to him
includes the sky, as opposed to a view of residences located further uphill from his
property. The sunlight penetrating his south facing windows has an aesthetic quality that
he values. The light and view of the sky conveys a sense of spaciousness within this
10
[36] These are the type of effects covered under policy 18.2.2.3 and they could arise
even if the design of the future dwelling complies with the bulk and location rules of the
plan (18.2.1 and policy 18.2.2.3; objective 18.3.1 and policy 18.3.2.3). That is not to
suggest, however, that any level of effect means the consent for a future dwelling will be
declined. The policy makes clear his amenity must not be "unreasonably den[ied"].
Future dwelling
[37] In the absence of confirmed building plans, he and his witnesses have had
recourse to plans submitted on a Project Information Memorandum to the Council and
second, to plans produced by the Gullefords during mediation in respect of which
privileged was waived. 19 The only plans we received were those attached to Mr
Maxwell's evidence. It seems likely Mr Maxwell's plans differ from the ones attached to
the Project Information Memorandum.
[38] The development assessed by Mr Maxwell would have an effect on the value of
Mr Fitzgerald's property. The loss of value is due almost entirely to a reduction in privacy
with a balcony extending along the north and west facing frontage of the dwelling
overlooking Mr Fitzgerald's house and outdoor living space. It is doubtful that the loss of
privacy per se is relevant under this policy (the policy does not reference the
unreasonable denial of privacy). That said, the importance of having building plans was
drawn out by Mr Maxwell who said that if the future dwelling's living areas were not
orientated towards the dwelling and outdoor living area of 27 Bayview St, this would have
a lesser effect on value. 20
[39] Likewise, shading diagrams were produced through Mr Elder, a surveyor called
on behalf of Mr Fitzgerald. It seems likely Mr Elder was working off different plans than
those considered by Mr Maxwell. He was possibly referring to plans attached to the
Project Information Memorandum showing the future dwelling at a slightly different
location to the later-in-time subdivision plan. He confirmed that if the future dwelling was
in a different position to the one modelled, he would need to run the model again to
determine the impact on shade.21 Access to sunlight and daylight are important
considerations under this objective and policy.
19 The disclosure of privileged documents by Mr Fitzgerald was an abuse of the court's processes. During the hearing, Mr Gulleford waived the privilege that attached to those documents. 20 Transcript at 24-25.
21 Transcript at 32.
11
[40] At the risk of belabouring the matter, it is important that the Gullefords support
their land use consent application with the plans for the dwelling they are seeking
consent. This is necessary in order for Mr Fitzgerald to have accurate information by
which to assess the effects on his amenity. Indeed, this is what is required so that the
effects of the future dwelling can be assessed under the objective and policies. Anything
less leaves Mr Fitzgerald in the position of having to engage in shadow boxing.
The "cottage"
[41] The "cottage" is a garage that has been converted into a residential unit without
obtaining planning permission. The District Council processed the application on the
basis that the kitchen and laundry would be removed in which case the "cottage" would
become a sleepout. Even so, this habitable space is to be occupied, we were told, by
the Gullefords' grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Measuring 6 m x 6 m it is located
1.4 m from the southern boundary and 1.85 m from the shared boundary with Mr
Fitzgerald.22 The non-compliance concerns the proximity of the building to the shared
boundary with Mr Fitzgerald.
[42] It was Mr Bonis' evidence that were the future dwelling to be located in the area
of the sleepout, this could substantially diminish the effects on Mr Fitzgerald. Indeed, the
relocation of the sleepout elsewhere in the property would provide better opportunities to
develop the site.23 In saying that, this may change the type and scale of effects on other
neighbours.
[43] That said, we found no discussion of the effects of the intrusion of this building
together with the future dwelling in the decision of the Hearing Commissioners or in Mr
Bonis' evidence.
Assessment of the land use consent applications
[44] In the absence of any plans for the future dwelling we do not know how a future
dwelling considered together with the "cottage" will respond to the objectives and policies.
We are satisfied that the existing dwelling located on an undersized site has no effect on
"\.(.'r, S b u .. iJ;.'
'. JI)..0"'J ' I'rr ' 22 The length of the eastern far,;ade may also exceed the performance standards in the plan. See Bonis, EiC ~ at [99].
~ 1JS? 23 Transcript at 70. ~ S .~" "'" '\ <'1.')., • ~)
, (} ---- ''',,\~ . OUFIT Of 1;\~'
12
Mr Fitzgerald's amenity. No other issues were raised by the appellant in relation to the
consent sought for this building.
Outcome
[45] The appeal in relation to the grant of subdivision consent is declined and the
subdivision is confirmed.
[46] The appeal in relation to the land use consent for an existing dwelling on Lot 1 is
declined and the use of the land by the existing dwelling confirmed.
[47] The appeal in relation to the retrospective approval of a non-compliance of the
"cottage" with the internal boundary separation is upheld. Resource consent is not
approved.
[48] The appeal in relation to the land use consent application for a future dwelling on
Lot 2 is upheld. Resource consent is not approved.
Further directions
Conditions of consent
[49] To give effect to the court's decision, the subdivision plan is to be resubmitted
removing the building labelled "garage" - referred in evidence to as the "cottage" or
"sleepout". Second, this decision approves only the existing house on Lot 1. We do
not know whether the structures we observed around the house require building or
resource consent. The structures are not shown on the subdivision plan and accordingly,
they do not form part of this decision. With that said, the conditions of subdivision and
land use consent will need to be reviewed in light of this decision. Attached and labelled
"A" are marked up changes to the conditions for the parties' consideration. We will direct
the parties respond to those changes (confirming or proposing other modifications) by
Wednesday 19 December 2018. A final decision will be issued in due course.
13
Costs
[50] Costs are reserved. Any application for costs is to be filed by Friday 18 January
2019, with replies to be filed by Friday 1 February 2019.
For the court:
Borthwick
ironment Judge
Attachment A: Draft consent conditions
Subdivision Consent
General
1. The subdivision proceed in accordance with the submitted plan prepared by [to be
insertedlGilbert Haymes and Associates Ltd Job Reference 20162703, dated 20 December 2016,
unless otherwise specified below.
2. Stormwater from hardstand or roofed areas shall not discharge across the neighbouring
boundaries, unless suitable protected by easements.
3. The consent holder shall ensure that all engineering works for the subdivision conform to
NZ4404:2010 - Standards for Land Development and Subdivision Engineering or any subseq uent
amendment to this standard.
4. Prior to any work being undertaken, the consent holder must obtain written approval by the
Kaikoura District Council for any variation from NZ4404:2010.
Easements
5. All Council utility schemes (water, sewer etc.) created located within the proposed lots shall be
protected by an easement in gross in favour ofthe Kaikoura District Council extending l.5m from the
pipe centre lines. All such easements must be accessible by legal road.
6. Stormwater from hardstand or roofed areas shall not discharge across the neighbouring
boundaries, unless suitable protected by easements. All such easements, including any amendments
found necessary during the final engineering design shall be granted and reserved .
Vehicle Access
7. The consent holder shall provide vehicle crossings to comply with sections 13.12.8 and 12.8.2 of
the Kaikoura District Plan.
8. Vehicle crossing proposed LOT 1 (Bayview Street) shall be properly formed to Council standards.
Vehicle crossing on LOT 2 (Hastings street) shall be upgraded to Council standards.
9. No work on the vehicle crossing shall begin until written approval is obtained from the Kaikoura
District Council.
10. Prior to sealing of the vehicle access, the consent holder shall have the formed vehicle access
inspected and approved by the Kaikoura District Council.
Notes: To obtain approval to form a vehicle crossing, the consent holder shall submit the application
Vehicle crossings means the formed and constructed vehicle entry/exit from the carriageway of any
road up to and including that portion of the road boundary of any site across which vehicle entry or
exist is obtained to and from the site, and includes any culvert, bridge or kerbing. Vehicle access is
the area of land where is a site or multiple sites without road frontage gain access to a legal road -
commonly referred to as a right of way.
Water Supply
11. The Consent Holder shall provide a separate water connection to Kaikoura's urban water supply
to Lot 2. Lot 2 shall have a new Acuflo water connection at the road boundary on Hastings Street
unless approved otherwise.
12. Prior to construction the consent holder shall submit to Council an application for the water
connection together with details of the connection's location and materials to the Council Engineer
to confirm that they accord to the Kaikoura District Council standards.
Note: To obtain approval to form a water connection, the consent holder shall submit the form
Application for water connection to the Kaikoura District Council. Only Council's Maintenance
Contractor is authorised to connect to the water main. (The application form can be obtained at
Kaikoura District Council Office or can be downloaded from our website).
Sewage
13. The Consent Holder shall provide a separate connection to Kaikoura District's Sewer System for
Lot 2.
14. Prior to construction the consent holder shall submit to Council an application for the sewer
connection together with details of the connection's location and materials to the Council Engineer
to confirm that they accord to the Kaikoura District Council standards.
Note: To obtain approval to design to be approved by Council, the consent holder shall submit the
form Application for sewer connection to the Kaikoura District Council. Only Council's Maintenance
Contractor is authorised to perform the final tapping into the live sewer main. (The application form
can be obtained at Kaikoura District Council Office or can be downloaded from our website).
Stormwater
15. The Consent Holder shall provide a separate stormwater connection for Lot 1 and Lot 2.
16. Stormwater from hardstand or roofed areas shall not discharge across neighbouring boundaries,
unless suitably protected by easements.
17. The consent holder shall be responsible for ensuring that the stormwater pipe serving Lot 2 onto
Hasting is inserted under the footpath and the discharge pipe to the kerb. The consent holder is
responsible for all works and costs associated with the placement of the stormwater pipe, including
. any costs and works associated with restoring the footpath or kerb. '\'(\\~ 'wc;,I._ w;: .
----.. I A - Nq~e:' '>fJ~in approval to form a storm water connection the consent holder shall submit the form
I • tl n r storm water connection to the Kaikoura ~
% ~) ~ . s \~(:.1.." ~ 'V9~
, {") <'~'\'\ "OUFIT nF ~'v .
District Council. (The application form can be obtained at Kaikoura District Council Office or can be
downloaded from our website).
Telecom and Power Connections
18. Written confirmation shall be submitted to the Kaikoura District Council that separate
connections for Telecom and Power have been installed to the Road boundary of each lot and to the
net area of each LOT. All new services shall be laid underground.
As-Built Plans
19. The consent holder shall submit to Council as-built drawings of all new and existing services
created.
20. Two A3 size copies of as-built plans and copies of the electronic files (e.g .. dwg or .dxf files)
showing all works and information as detailed in NZS 4404:2010 Schedule lD.
21. Plans shall be certified by a suitably-qualified person stating that they are a true and accurate
record.
22. Where the new services connect with the existing services the location, depth and orientation of
the existing services shall be confirmed on the asbuilt plans.
23. Above ground existing services shall also be identified on the As-built plans. Where known, the
location of existing underground service shall also be shown.
24. The consent holder shall prepare and submit to the consent authority asbuilt plans of all new
serves, prior to issuing the 224 certificate to demonstrate compliance with the above conditions.
Archaeological Matters
25. Where during excavation or land disturbance, any archaeological artefact or human remains are
accidentally discovered, work shall cease immediately and the consent holder must consult with a
representative ofTe Runanga 0 Kaikoura and Heritage New Zealand (and the Police in the case of
human remains), to determine what further actions are appropriate to safeguard the site or its
contents.
Review Conditions
26. In accordance with s128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Kaikoura District Council
may review any or all of the conditions of this consent by giving notice of the review in June in any
year after granting consent for the purpose of ensuring that the conditions are adequate to deal
with any adverse effects on the environment arising from the exercise ofthis consent, which were
not foreseen at the time of the application.
27. In accordance with s35 ofthe Resource Management Act 1991, monitoring compliance with the
consent will be undertaken by a Council Officer within six months of the date that the consent is
given effect to. All actual and reasonable costs incurred by the Council in monitoring, enforcement
and administration of this consent shall be met by the consent holder.
Specifically, monitoring is to ensure that the 'sleep out' at the rear of Lot 2 does not have a kitchen
and / or laundry re established, which would constitute the sleep out being defined as a separate
residential unit.
28. The consent holder shall meet all actual and reasonable costs incurred by the consent authority
in monitoring, enforcement and administration of the consent.
land use Consent
General
1. The subdivision proceeds in accordance -with the consent outlined above. The land use consent
pertains to the existing house on the site (nNew lot 1) only. with the submitted plan prepared by
Gilbert Haymes and Associates Ltd Job Reference 20162703, dated 20 December 2016, unless
othep .... ise specified be I 0'1.' .
2. That any future d..,,,elling on Lot 2 shall either:
i. Comply with all relevant performance standards in the Operative Kail<oura District Plan,
e)(cept for Density (Rule 18.7.9) as of the date by which consent is granted; or
ii. Obtain resource consent to address any additional matters of noncompliance ' .... ith the
Operative Kaikoura District Plan as of the date by '.vhich consent is granted; or
iii. At the time of construction and occupation be compliant ' .... ith the applicable replacement
District Plan, including minimum allotment size or density, or otherwise obtains resource
consent to address matters of non compliance .
3. INithin 10 working days of consent being granted the consent holder is to provide to the consent
authority, C/ the Planning Manager detailed plans of the elevation, internal spaces, and footprint of
the e)(isting sleepout, identifying the dimensions of the building and pro)(imity to internal
boundaries. These plans are to be stamped and contained as relevant plans to this consent.
Review Conditions
4. In accordance with s128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Kaikoura District Council may
review any or all of the conditions of this consent by giving notice of the revimv in June in any year
after granting consent for the purpose of ensuring that the conditions are adequate to deal with any
adverse effects on the environment arising from the e)(ercise of this consent, which were not
foreseen at the time of the application .
