consent, pursuant to sections 104 and 104b of...

Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 SUBJECT: Application for discretionary activity resource consent under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 by Real Living (Properties) Limited to redevelop the existing site at 57 and 68 Richard Farrell Avenue, Remuera held on 9 and 10 April 2015 commencing at 9.30am

CONSENT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104 AND 104B OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT, IS REFUSED.

THE FULL DECISION IS SET OUT BELOW

Application Numbers: R/LUC/2014/1649

R/REG/2014/1885 R/REG/2015/159

Site Address 57-68 Richard Farrell Avenue, Remuera

Applicant: Real Living (Properties) Limited

Hearing commenced 9 and 10 April 2015

Independent Hearing Commissioners:

Ms Jenny Hudson Chairperson

Ms Melean Absolum

Appearances: For the Applicant:

Michael Savage Legal counsel

James Hook Planning consultant

Malcolm Brown Architect

Will Thresher Urban designer

Trevor Lee – Joe Traffic engineer

Nevil Hegley Acoustic engineer

Chris Shortt Engineer

Paul Murphy Landscape architect

Andrew Stiles Geotechnical engineer

Kevin Murphy Applicant representative

For the Submitters:

John & Valmai Trainor

M S & A L N De Roux

Mr Jonathan Cutler Planning consultant for the Residents Group

R H & S M Caisley

1 R/LUC/2014/1649, R/REG/2014/1885, R/REG/2015/159 57-68 Richard Farrell Avenue, Remuera

M D & K M Geck

Dr Marie Todd

David Wren Planning consultant for Marie Todd

Moyra Hilda Martin

J & D Subritzky

A P M Kroef

For the Council:

Quentin Budd Senior Resource Consent Project Manager

Neil Rasmussen Reporting officer

Jack Turner Development engineer

Lisa Mein Urban designer

Andrea Aranha Democracy advisor - hearings

Hearing Adjourned 10 April 2015

Hearing panel’s site visit:

7 April and 21 April 2015

Hearing Closed: 22 April 2015

Introduction

1. This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) by Jenny Hudson and Melean Absolum (the commissioners) appointed and acting under delegated authority pursuant to sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The decision contains the findings of the commissioners’ deliberations on the application for resource consent and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA.

2. The application was publicly notified on 27 May 2014 and the submission closing date was 25 June 2014. A total of 38 submissions were received, with 2 in support, 2 neutral and 34 in opposition. Eight of the submissions were late.

3. Pursuant to Sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, the commissioners resolved that the time limit for the receipt of submissions be waived, and to accept the late submissions of PB and J Ambridge, D Moffitt, R Hopkins, M U and NM Ranchhod, B M Carter, A F Fookes, and T Asariah, for the following reasons:

(a) the above submissions were received within 3 working days of the closing date and their inclusion does not affect the duty of the Council to avoid unreasonable delay;

(b) The inclusion of these submissions allows for a full assessment of the effects of the proposal.

(c) no person would be adversely prejudiced by granting the waiver;

(d) the applicant did not oppose the waiver.

4. The late submission received from College Rifles Rugby Union Football & Sports Club


Inc is not accepted, as it was incomplete. However, Mr Savage tabled a written statement from the Club dated 17 June 2014, in which it provided its approval to the proposed development.

Decision summary

5. Under section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, consent is refused to the discretionary activity application by Real Living (Properties) Limited to redevelop and extend the Remuera Gardens retirement village at 57 and 68 Richard Farrell Ave, Remuera, being Lot 2 DP 82746 and Part Lot 5, DP 57937, referenced as R/LUC/2014/1649.

Summary of proposal and activity status

6. Real Living (Properties) Limited applied to the Council for resource consent to redevelop the existing Remuera Gardens Retirement Village on a site of 2.8403ha, comprising the existing village at 57 Richard Farrell Ave and an adjoining property currently occupied by a dwelling at 68 Richard Farrell Avenue.

7. The proposal involves the demolition of the dwelling at 68 Richard Farrell Ave, and the removal/demolition of 44 ground level garages and 5 apartment buildings at 57 Richard Farrell Avenue in order to construct the first stage of development, with further demolition at subsequent stages.1 Four new multi-level buildings with basement car parking are to be located at the northwest, southeast and southwest corners of the site.2 They will all be between 15m and 16m in height.

8. In addition, extensions to the existing, centrally located communal facilities building will provide for apartment-style retirement units and a new aged care facility. The proposal includes revised internal access, driveways and new planting. The application will enable a comprehensive redevelopment of the existing village to accommodate a larger number of residents and to include additional facilities such as hospital care units. The redevelopment is intended to be undertaken in stages.

9. The present village has a total of 145 units with 195 bedrooms and there are currently 91 garages on the site, plus 28 visitor carparks, 2 mobility carparks and a short term parking space for deliveries.

10. On completion of the proposed development there would be a total of 308 units with approximately 550 bedrooms and 276 carparks comprising:

• 56 one-bedroom units;

• 77 two- bedroom apartments;

• 53 two and a half bedroom units;

• 44 three-bedroom townhouses; and

• 82 care units.3

11. The applicant included a detailed outline of the proposed development and staging in Section 5.2 of the application and Assessment of Environmental Effects ('AEE')

1 Evidence of Malcolm Brown, paragraph 11 2 The southwest building has been modified following public notification from a single 'Building 3' into separated twin buildings now identified as Buildings 3a and 3b. 3 the discrepancy of 4 units in the total number results from a reduction from 22 units to 18 in Building 2.


prepared by Envivo Limited. The resulting mix of existing and new units following completion of the redevelopment will be approximately as set out in table 1 (page 9) in the AEE; however there have been minor adjustments to these figures following amendments to the proposal including a reduction of four units in Building 2.4

12. Further design amendments were made following the receipt of submissions; these form part of the application and were considered in the section 42A report. All submitters were given written or electronic notice that the additional information was available at the Council office on 10 December 2014. We accept that the amendments fall within the scope of the original application, and re-notification of the application was not required.

13. The changes made to the application are described in the section 42A report are as follows:

Building 1

• A new covered link between Building 1 and the community centre has been added.

• The building roof form has been altered into three hipped roof forms.

Building 2

• A new western entrance to the building lift and stairway to the upper level apartments, together with a covered link to the public parking spaces has been added.

• The eastern building face has been set back further from the eastern boundary and the building form staggered on all levels.

• The apartments on the upper floor levels have been reconfigured to provide greater setback from the eastern boundary as well as the southern boundary in the south-eastern corner of the building.

• The roof form over the central eastern portion of the building has been re-oriented to include several hipped roofs.

Building 3

• Buildings 3a and 3b have been set back further north from the boundary with Koraha Reserve to provide for an overland flow path between the buildings and the reserve boundary.

• The building form has been amended to provide for a smaller footprint and greater separation between Buildings 3a and 3b.

14. Another schematic design amendment was tabled at the hearing in response to questions from the commissioners relating to the 'open space' on the north side of Buildings 3a and 3b. A vehicle accessway with a small roundabout was originally shown off the main driveway leading to the front of the buildings, the main purpose being as a drop off for visitors and residents in those buildings. This was amended to remove the vehicle access and provide additional planting and pedestrian paths, with a new drop-off area tucked in to the side of the main driveway.

4 oral advice provided by Mr Savage at the hearing that the number of units in Building 2 has decreased by 4


Reasons for consent

15. The matters requiring consent are summarised in the report prepared on the Council's behalf by Mr Rasmussen under section 42A of the RMA ('the section 42A report'), as follows:

16. "Land use consent is required under the Auckland Council District Plan – Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 (District Plan) for the housing development for the elderly or disabled, and retirement village components, maximum height of buildings exceeding 8m, height in relation to boundary infringements to the northern boundary (Building 1) and to the southern boundary (Buildings 2 and 3), building coverage exceeding 35% of site area, car parking shortfall, earthworks, development within a flood plain area, removal of protected trees and works within the dripline of other protected trees. The proposal also requires consent for the diversion and discharge of stormwater under the Auckland Regional Plan - Air Land and Water (ALWP) as well as for earthworks, groundwater diversion and stormwater discharge from impervious surfaces under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP)".

17. Full references to the reasons for the application, as well as the applicable District Plan, Regional Plan and PAUP provisions that have immediate legal effect are set out in section 4 of the section 42A report and sections 6.7 and 6.9 of the applicant's Assessment of Environmental Effects.5 The AEE also includes a comprehensive analysis of applicable development controls in section 6.6.2 (Table 5). They are not repeated here.

18. At the hearing we were advised of a further matter for consent to be considered under the PAUP by Mr Budd, the Council's Team Leader - Resource Consents, being the proposed change to the overland flow path in an area subject to flooding (Rule H.4.12). This had been assessed by Mr Hinton in relation to the effects on adjacent trees within Koraha Reserve.6 Mr Turner, the Council's consultant engineer on civil engineering aspects of the application, had also provided a brief assessment of activities within flow paths under Rule H.4.12 and confirmed that the recommended conditions of consent numbered 28 - 31 were intended to resolve any residual uncertainty with the flooding issues, both in terms of 'vulnerable activities' and 'overland flow paths'.7

19. Overall the proposal has been considered as a discretionary activity and there was no disagreement regarding its activity status.

Permitted baseline

20. We concur with Mr Rasmussen's opinion that there is no useful permitted baseline test to be applied to the proposal.8 This conclusion was not challenged by the applicant or submitters.

Existing consent

21. We note that the existing land use consent for the village was granted in October 1986. That consent included in the reasons for approval that:

(a) "the proposals comply or can comply with the height and height in relation to boundary requirements of the District Scheme and are considered to represent a reasonable intensity of development;

5 prepared by Envivo Ltd, dated April 2014 6 Memo from Chris Hinton, Katsura Tree and Landscape, to Envivo dated 19/11/2014 7 email dated 10 April 2015 from Jack Turner, Babington and Associates (2004) Ltd, to Neil Rasmussen 8 section 42A report, section 6.2.1


(b) adequate visual and acoustic privacy can be provided between the units within the development and for the neighbouring sites;

(c) satisfactory provision can be made for on-site parking and parking layout....

(d) the development is compatible in scale with what would be normally possible in the area and should have no adverse effect on the amenities of the immediate neighbourhood."

22. We place no weight on this existing consent, other than to note the consideration of similar issues to those of concern to submitters in regard to the current proposal.

Summary of evidence heard

For the applicant

23. The applicant‘s counsel, Mr Savage, made written submissions in opening and he provided an oral reply at the conclusion of the hearing, in support of granting the application.

24. Mr Chris Murphy, the applicant, provided background information about the purchase of the site in November 2011, the previous experience of the Murphy and Kasper families (the directors and shareholders of the controlling entities) in retirement village development including Pakuranga Park Village, the reasons for the proposal, planned stages of development, and consultation with village residents and neighbours.

25. Mr Malcom Brown, the applicant's project architect, commented on the client's brief, the site's physical characteristics, the relationship of proposed new buildings to the existing village facilities and the 'masterplan' (staging) of development planned over 10 years. He explained the relationship of the site to the external environment, and commented on how the buildings have been designed to mitigate effects of shadowing and privacy on adjoining neighbours. He discussed the building design, internal environment, building specifications and colour scheme.

26. Mr Paul Murphy gave evidence on the landscape design intent, landscape issues raised in submissions and issues raised in the section 42A report.

27. Mr Thresher's evidence addressed urban design issues raised by the Council's urban designer and reporting planner, and in public submissions.

28. Mr Hegley gave evidence on noise effects of construction and traffic.

29. Mr Lee-Joe, a consultant traffic engineer, gave evidence for the applicant on the nature and operation of the existing traffic environment, the adequacy and suitability of proposed on-site parking, predicted trip generation and the effects of traffic on the function and performance of the surrounding road network. He also discussed construction traffic and concluded that traffic effects could be managed by conditions. The Council's traffic engineer, Mr Bui, provided a written response confirming that there were no matters in Mr Lee-Joe's evidence that he disagreed with.

30. Mr Shortt, the applicant's consultant engineer, gave evidence on the civil engineering matters associated with the development. These included site servicing, overland flow/flooding, and site works/earthworks.

31. Mr Stiles' evidence addressed the geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological implications of the proposed redevelopment. He discussed the potential for seismically induced liquefaction damage to occur, appropriate foundation structures and the


potential effects of basement construction on existing groundwaters, responding to the section 42A report and submitters' concerns.

32. Mr Hook, a consultant planner, gave evidence for the applicant in support of granting the application. Mr Hook also tabled a supplementary statement of evidence addressing the objectives and policies of the District Plan relating to the Open Space 2 (Informal Recreation) Zone, which applies to the adjoining Koraha Reserve.

Submitters' representations

33. Mr Trainor presented a written submission on behalf of himself and his wife. They have lived at 64 Richard Farrell Ave for 20 years and have found the existing village to be a good neighbour. However, they have concerns regarding the impact of 'huge' buildings, which they consider will dominate the skyline and are inappropriate for the neighbourhood. They believe Building 1, which is adjacent to their property, will result in largely uninterrupted views of their property from the higher floors. They would like a lower building on their boundary.

34. They sought retention of an existing liquidambar tree on the western boundary of the site; the applicant confirmed that they would agree to keep it.

35. They had concerns at the potential use of their driveway, which is shared by 64, 66 and 68 Richard Farrell Ave, for access to the village site (which the owner of 68 Richard Farrell Ave has a right to use). They would like the driveway to be restricted to light traffic.

36. Mr De Roux resides at 53B Richard Farrell Ave, adjacent to the western boundary of the village on the south side of the street. His main concerns were the bulk of the buildings and access to Koraha Reserve, which he and his family uses on a regular basis. With any increase in traffic along the pedestrian walkway through the village, there could be more danger for his 7 year old son. He also expressed a concern at the potential loss of privacy but understood this is to be mitigated by the established trees. He said he had a tree on the corner of his house which provided screening not only from the back units (1-4/53 Richard Farrell Ave) but also from the retirement village, but the tree has been cut down because it was too close to the house and its root system was impacting on the stability of the house.

37. Mr Caisley and his wife have been resident on their property at 62B Richard Farrell Ave for 42 years. They have noticed the changing dynamics over the years and were there when the village was originally developed. They don’t have objections to development but have noticed the traffic environment of Richard Farrell Ave changing. They have a number of friends in the retirement village and there is a very good relationship between residents of Remuera Gardens and the surrounding area. They are not against the proposal as such, but are against the proposed building heights. They consider that the changes are major. They already have to give way to oncoming traffic because of on-street parking. They have experienced sub-contractors who park whereever they want to. There are children in the street and are concerned no-one will enforce rules for construction vehicles. In their opinion the development is a major departure from what is zoned [Residential] 6A and they ask that it be refused.

38. Mr Geck raised questions around the traffic report from the previous day of the hearing and wanted to know whether there would be a traffic management programme during construction. He was concerned that a fire truck, which is 2.5m wide, might not be able to get to the village if people were parked on both sides of Richard Farrell Ave. He was concerned about traffic speed and thought some speed restrictions should be put in place. He compared Richard Farrell Ave with other narrow streets such as St Andrews Road and in Dannemora as examples where, looking on google, they appeared to have


yellow lines on one side of the road and parking bays on the other.

39. Mrs Subritzky has lived at 58 Richard Farrell Ave for over 40 years and considered that the effects of construction over a period of 9 years would be significant. She raised the issue of road maintenance in Richard Farrell Ave, and the wear and tear on this street over the construction period. She commented that the applicant refers to the College Rifles site as a ‘green area’ but pointed out that this is artificial turf.

40. Mr Subritzky was opposed to the scale of the proposal, stating that it is not in keeping with the lovely area and the village as it is. In response to a question from the commissioners, Mr Subritzky explained that there had been a continuous line of cars parked in the street when the village ran a computer course, which had occurred once a week for about 6 months.

41. Ms Kroef talked about her experience when a pile driver was used during the village’s initial construction, which she described as horrendous. Her concern, as she lives in an area which is less affected by the present proposal, is a lack of neighbourliness on the part of Remuera Gardens. There is a ROW between her property and the fence but she is worried about management of the "inevitable" noise from construction and believes 8am to 6pm are long hours for construction works in a residential neighbourhood. She has grave concerns about drainage, although she doesn't have any subsidence in her property. She looks forward to more neighbourliness from Remuera Gardens.

42. Mrs Moyra Martin is a resident of the retirement village and lives in Unit 10. She is strongly opposed to the redevelopment because of the size of Building 1, and in her written statement she provided a number of reasons why it would affect her amenities9. She outlined her concerns regarding the ongoing effects of the development for village residents, and was of the view that the "high rise" construction would have a substantial detrimental effect on the wider neighbourhood.

43. Mr Cutler, a planning consultant, appeared in support of the Richard Farrell Ave Residents' Group which comprises owners/occupiers of 18 properties in Richard Farrell Ave, Hubert Henderson Place and Nordon Place. Mr Cutler's evidence addressed the existing character and amenity of the surrounding environment, the statutory matters to be considered under the RMA and in particular, the District Plan provisions. He also commented on environmental effects and Part 2 RMA considerations. His overall conclusion was that the adverse effects are more than minor, the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives, policies and environmental outcomes contemplated by the District Plan. He stated any positive effects would not outweigh the adverse effects and therefore the proposal does not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

44. Dr Maree Todd presented a submission on her own behalf. She has resided at 97 Maungarei Road since 1991. She stated that as a geriatrician, she has a good awareness of the projected housing needs for older people and is not opposed to the redevelopment of the village but objects to the scale of what is proposed. She raised concerns at the wisdom of developing multi-storey buildings on the Puketoka formation soils, which she contended are unstable and "like building on a sponge". Her property has experienced damage which she attributes to the drainage works done by the Council approximately 5 years ago in the neighbouring Koraha Reserve. Dr Todd considered the height of Building 2 to be excessive, which is visually overbearing and would cause excessive shading. The amenity value of her outdoor spaces in the afternoon would be reduced. Noise from residents and lighting could also disturb neighbours. She also stated that the shortcomings in the design of the nursing home

9 we confirmed on our site visit that Mrs Martin's home is one which would have to be demolished to allow Building 1 to be constructed and this will not be able to occur without her agreement.


are of concern to her, having regard to the low levels of natural light in the ground floor and first floor units, and lack of access to an outdoor space. She sought that consent for Building 2 be declined and a modified design submitted that has less impact on neighbouring properties and potential residents.

45. Mr Wren, a planning consultant representing Dr Todd, gave evidence on planning matters relating particularly to the effects of Building 2 on Dr Todd's property. He considered the District Plan's objectives and policies and the PAUP, and suggested conditions (including several relating to subsidence monitoring) that would reduce the impact of the proposal on her land.

On behalf of the Council

46. The report prepared by Mr Rasmussen on behalf of the Council under section 42A of the RMA was circulated to the applicant, the submitters and the commissioners prior to the hearing. This report contained expert advice from the Council's urban design, traffic engineering, stormwater, sediment management and geotechnical specialists. The officer’s report was taken as read.

Relevant statutory provisions considered

47. In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant statutory provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 of the RMA and section(s) 104B, 105 and 107.

Other relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered:

48. In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(iv) of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents:

Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), with particular reference to:

• the provisions included within 2.6.1 Strategic Objectives and 2.6.5 Strategic Policies Urban Structure that seek to encourage higher density development within the existing urban area in close proximity to existing high density centres and corridors.

• The objectives contained in Chapter 8 of the ARPS to maintain water quality and enhance degraded water quality for the protection of natural state open coastal waters, aquatic ecosystems, recreation, food gathering, water supply, cultural and aesthetic purposes.

• The provisions contained in Chapter 11 of the ARPS relating to Natural Hazards which include objectives and policies that seek to ensure that the effects of flood hazards are avoided remedied or mitigated, and to ensure that redevelopment does not exacerbate the effects of any existing flood hazard.

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

• Chapter 2 Values; Objectives 2.1.3, 2.2.3, Policies 2.2.4.1, 2.2.4.3

• Chapter 5 Discharges; Objectives 5.3.1, 5.3.4, Policies 5.4.2

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

• Part 2 – Resource Management


• Part 5C – Heritage

• Part 5D – Natural Hazards

• Part 6 - Human Environment

• Part 7 – Residential Activity

• Part 12 – Transportation.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013

• Chapter C: Auckland wide objectives and policies relating to natural resources including those relating to earthworks, contaminated land, stream and wetland management, and water quality and management, specifically:

- C5.2 of the PAUP - earthworks

- C5.14 Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Wetland Management, Objectives 1-7; Policies 1-5, 7, 1

- C 5.15.1 Water Quality and Integrated Management, Objectives 1-6, Policies 1-23

• Chapter D: Zone objectives and policies for the Single House and Mixed Housing Suburban Zones.

49. The commissioners also considered the following other matters to be relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section 104(1)(c) as referred to in the section 42A report in section 6.8 of that report being:

• submissions

• letter from the Council Parks Department

• monitoring

Site description and locality

50. Richard Farrell Ave is a narrow no-exit street comprising predominantly one and two storey dwellings and is located off the upper (northern) end of Ladies Mile. The existing village is situated on low-lying flat land at the eastern end of Richard Farrell Avenue, adjoining the College Rifles Rugby Football Club sports fields to the north and Koraha Reserve to the south. However 68 Richard Farrell Avenue rises several metres towards its north-western corner and shares a right-of way driveway with 3 other elevated residential properties at 62B, 64 and 66 Richard Farrell Ave. The remaining boundaries of the site are surrounded by residential dwellings with a footway linking Koraha Reserve to Maungarei Road separating much of the village's eastern boundary from the nearest houses. The wider area to the east is generally occupied by residential dwellings with the land rising up towards Koraha Road. For reference purposes, we have included an aerial photograph of the site and its surrounds as Figure 1, below.

51. The western boundary of the site south of Richard Farrell Ave is also adjoined by residential dwellings, for the most part separated from village buildings by a public accessway located within the village site and parallel to the western boundary.


52. The existing village comprises a mix of single and two level buildings providing a range of accommodation options including dwellings, townhouses, apartments and rest home facilities together with a central community facilities building. Carparking comprises at-grade garages and outside spaces. The existing layout is as depicted in Figure 2 of the applicant's AEE document and attached site plan ( RC10-01). The main vehicle access to the site is via an entry/exit at the eastern end of Richard Farrell Avenue with a secondary vehicle access for staff and trade vehicles adjacent to the western boundary.

Figure 1: aerial photograph of Remuera Gardens Retirement Village and surrounds

Issues in contention and findings

Urban design, landscape and visual amenity effects

53. The section 42A report outlines the design iterations that have occurred prior to and following lodgement of the application, both in response to the comments made by the Urban Design Panel and in response to submissions. The applicant’s AEE includes a


general assessment of the effects of the proposal in Section 7.0 of the application. This assessment includes a review of the various development control infringements and effects on the surrounding environment, which remain generally applicable noting the design changes that have occurred subsequently and summarised in paragraph 13 above. We have had regard to this information, but do not repeat it here.

54. Many of the submissions opposing the proposal on urban design, landscape and visual amenity grounds refer to the scale and proximity of buildings to adjoining land, the change in character of the site, the overall intensity of development and loss of gardens and amenity. The proposal is regarded by many residents as out of character with surrounding residential development and the applicant's witnesses, Mr Thresher and Mr Hook, also agree that there will be a change in character as a result of the proposal. However, there are divergent opinions amongst the experts as to whether the effects of this change in character are acceptable or not. Submitters' concerns specifically refer to the building heights, dominance, shading, privacy and overlooking. These are all elements that contribute to the overall intensity, character and scale of the development that are the central issue in this case.

55. The applicant's assessment provides the following arguments in support of the proposal:

• In terms of density and scale, the proposed buildings have been designed to complement those existing buildings that are to remain.

• While the buildings are large the proposed buildings will be compatible with adjoining buildings on neighbouring properties.

• The scale of the buildings is offset by the adjacent open spaces and the buildings have been designed with variation in vertical and horizontal elements.

• While the scale of the development is different from that provided for by the zone, it is sympathetic to the landform and topography of the site. The layout of the site, in particular, will meet the needs of the residents of the retirement village and other site users.

• The intensity of the development is not incompatible with the character and amenities of the surrounding area. Brown Day Group have provided several photomontages which illustrate the views of the buildings from certain vantage points in the surrounding area. In the applicant’s assessment, Building 1 is said to be the most prominent, as it is located adjacent to the open space zone to the north while the other buildings will be partially screened by existing trees and dwellings10.

• The open space areas to the north and south of the site, ensure that the sense of spaciousness is retained within the surrounding residential area.

Building height and dominance

56. The application seeks that each of the three buildings (for convenience, the twin buildings identified on the plans as Buildings 3a and 3b in the southwest are referred to as a single entity) exceed the 8m height limit by about 8m. That is, they would be twice the height of the majority of established dwellings in the adjacent residential zone. We do not consider this to be a minor infringement.

57. The buildings have the following approximate overall linear dimensions:

10 section 42A report, page 23 of the Hearing Agenda


• Building 1: 80m along the western elevation facing residential development (with variations in building height and separation distances from the boundary); 45m along the northern elevation facing the College Rifles sports ground;

• Building 2: 60m along the southern elevation facing Koraha Reserve; 50m along the eastern boundary facing residential development off Maungarei Road;

• Buildings 3a and 3b: 75m along the southern elevation facing Koraha Reserve (with a 7.5m separation in between) and 30m along the western elevation facing residential development on the southern side of Richard Farrell Ave.

58. While the buildings have been well articulated and detailed with design elements to reduce the visual perception of height, bulk and dominance (hipped roof form, logia style balconies, stepped upper levels) they all have a large mass. This is exacerbated by the generous 2.7m high floor to ceiling heights of each level, which would provide an additional amenity for future occupants, compared with 'standard' floor to ceiling heights of 2.4m, but potentially adds more than one metre to the overall height of each building.

59. The existing retirement village has been established for many years and is regarded in planning terms and by submitters as compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Both Mr Thresher and Ms Mein considered that, as the new buildings have an interface with surrounding residential development, they require a sensitive design response, particularly as they are by no means of a similar scale or appearance to that of the residential buildings in the surrounding area.

60. We agree with Ms Mein's assessment that the site is capable of supporting additional development at an increased height. However, from an urban design perspective, Ms Mein has concerns with "the bulk, form and appearance of the buildings in terms of their interface with adjoining residential land to the east and west and open space to the north and south as well as to the existing development on the site". 11

61. This opinion is shared, in part, by Mr Rasmussen, as he considers that there will be adverse effects on the amenity of immediately adjoining residences, particularly to the west of Buildings 1 and 3a, and to the east of Building 2. We note that he has assessed these effects as "minor" overall, taking into account the amendments made to the building designs post-lodgement and the increased set-backs from the site boundaries.

62. Mr Thresher's argument is that the change to the character of the village will be generally limited to the edges of the village. He also considers that such change is anticipated by residential and retirement trends and the proposal will form a comfortable fit with the environment and neighbourhood.12 In our view, it is the impact of the changes along the edges of the village site that give rise to the building and dominance effects which the District Plan seeks to avoid, and which have resulted in submissions from neighbours.

63. Mr Thresher considered that the low elevation of the site means that buildings will generally be lower than surrounding houses and will therefore be integrated into the wider landscape13. He went on to state that although proposed buildings will be prominent from some locations, he has evaluated the overall effects as low.14

11 Lisa Mein memo to Neil Rasmussen dated 8 December 2014, page 2 (page 650 of the hearing agenda) 12 Thresher evidence paragraphs 37 and 38 13Thresher evidence paragraph 35 14 Thresher evidence paragraph 42


64. Landscape treatment and existing vegetation will also assist in softening views of the buildings but it is accepted by Mr Thresher that trees on neighbouring sites cannot be relied upon for mitigation of effects.15 His overall view is that the effects of taller buildings on the site are mitigated by design. Mr Murphy acknowledged that there is limited space to implement planting around the boundaries of the proposed buildings, particularly in the north-west and south-east corners of the site.16

65. Having considered all the evidence, we find that while the application has:

• been amended to move some buildings (2 and 3) further from the boundary; and • stepped to reduce the height of the buildings close to the boundary;

they all remain, in our view, overly dominant, particularly with respect to loss of sky outlook for neighbouring residential properties to east and west.

66. We do not see any way that this dominance of neighbouring residential properties can be further mitigated, without creating additional adverse effects both internally to the site and on neighbours, (eg additional shading) or managed by conditions of consent. It is a direct consequence of the proposal to locate over height buildings very close to residential boundaries.

Loss of privacy

67. Mr Wren and Mr Cutler provided expert evidence on behalf of residential neighbours to both the east and west of the site (respectively), that the location of the proposed buildings and their internal layouts will result in potential overlooking of existing private residential spaces by retirement village residents.

68. In one instance, at 62B Richard Farrell Avenue, the occupants only have east-facing outdoor space comprising two decks and a small garden area. For these residents there is no alternative north or south facing external area available and the upper level windows of proposed Building 1 will look directly across to these external spaces. Although tree planting is proposed on the edge of the bowling green and patio areas, there remains a potential for either loss of privacy, or loss of sun. In other words, the mitigation of one adverse effect introduces another.

69. Similarly, the layout of Building 3 means that a number of units are orientated towards 55 Richard Farrell Avenue. Ms Mein has some concerns about potential overlooking of 55 Richard Farrell Avenue by the west-facing balconies on the upper levels of this building. Although a number of semi-mature trees along the common boundary are proposed to be retained as part of the proposal, at least one of them is deciduous and loss of privacy during the winter months is a likely effect. We also note that substantial excavation is proposed in very close proximity to these trees, for the basement carpark. We heard no evidence to reassure us that this does not run the risk of adverse effects, such as lowering of water table17 and root damage, on the very trees which are being relied on to provide screening.

70. A similar situation exists with Building 2 and means that retirement village residents will have the ability to look down into the private external spaces of neighbouring residents at 97 and 99 Maungarei Road. In all these cases, the loss of privacy can only be overcome by the planting of additional trees. This, in itself, has the effect of negating

15 Thresher evidence paragraph 43 16 Murphy evidence paragraph 20 17 See comments on potential de-watering within 10m of the basement in paragraph 104 of this decision.


the height in relation to boundary controls and increasing shading on neighbouring properties.

Shadowing and loss of sunlight

71. The applicant helpfully provided shadow diagrams of the proposed development, along with diagrams of both the existing development and a complying development. However, not all the different month diagrams of the proposal had their equivalent complying and existing development diagrams provided. In comparing the diagrams provided we note the following:

• Mr Cutler correctly identifies18 that from May to July there would be additional shading during the morning on 62 Richard Farrell Ave from the proposal, as compared with a complying development;

• From March through winter to (presumably November although this was not illustrated) 55 Richard Farrell Ave has increased shading from the development, as compared with either the existing or a complying development;

• In March, and September the afternoon shading of 95, 97 and 99 Maungarei Road is greater as a result of the proposal than either the existing buildings or a complying development.

72. We are thus concerned that residential properties to both east and west of the site will suffer additional shading in either the morning (east of the site) or late afternoon (west of the site) directly as a result of the built development. We acknowledge that no tree shadows were included in the diagrams provided and that neighbours could plant trees close to boundaries, as of right.

Effects on residents of the care units

73. Although we heard uncontested evidence from Mr Thresher and Ms Mein that Koraha Reserve is able to cope with bulky buildings in relatively close proximity, this means the dense vegetation within the reserve will shade ground level and first floor rooms in both Buildings 2 and 3. We heard that some thinning of these trees is proposed but this is under the control of the Auckland Council's Parks Department and is not certain. With Building 2 closer to the reserve than Building 3, this is particularly concerning.

74. Having walked around the majority of the boundary inside the site (some parts were inaccessible) we are aware of how close to the boundary vegetation some of the existing buildings feel. Of note, is the fact that Building 2 is proposed to be twice as close (2.5m) to the southern boundary, and the vegetation on the reserve, than the buildings it will replace.

75. Despite this proximity to the boundary, Ms Mein and Mr Rasmussen considered that the additional shading is acceptable given that care units are proposed on the ground and first floor of Building 2, whereas the upper levels generally have outlook and decks facing north. However, evidence from Dr Todd who is a geriatric specialist, assured us that admission of sun and opportunities for views were essential for care patients19. She explained that “good natural light is important for maintaining circadian rhythms and good sleep wake cycles. Natural light may reduce confusion and depression. .... If your world is reduced to a nursing home room and lounge you really do want something pleasing to look at, rather than a depressing dark view of a fence from a dark room.” Although we understand that the boundary fence with Koraha Reserve is intended to be a visually permeable pool type fence, this will, in our opinion, still leave the care units inappropriately shaded and with a poor outlook.

18 Cutler evidence, paragraph 43 19 Evidence of Dr Todd, paragraph 4


76. We agree with Mr Cutler's opinion that "the primary effects of significance generated by this development are residential character and amenity effects that are a function of the scale of the proposed development and the degree of development control infringements proposed. These are impacts that cannot be overcome simply via minor amendments to the proposal or consent conditions. They are a consequence primarily of the intensity of the proposed development when considered in the context of this residential locality". 20

77. Our overall finding is that there will be moderate adverse visual, character and amenity effects arising from dominance, loss of privacy and shading of the proposal. Screen planting would, in time, reduce the effects on some properties, but in others would introduce the potential for new adverse effects that would be equally unacceptable.

Loss of protected trees

78. The proposal involves the removal of a number of trees from the site that are generally protected as well as works within the dripline of others. A comprehensive landscape proposal which includes specific additional planting around each proposed building forms part of the application. We concur with Mr Rasmussen's comment that the existing protected trees on site contribute to the amenity of the wider area, but the primary benefit is in terms of the amenity of the subject site itself. We find that the removal of trees and vegetation will be necessary to enable further development to occur within the site. Importantly, however, the ability to retain as many existing mature trees as possible is a key component of the mitigation of the adverse visual effects discussed above.

Traffic

79. A number of submitters were concerned at the effects of increased traffic in Richard Farrell Ave, particularly the potential for congestion along parts of the narrow carriageway if parked cars reduced the available space on the road. The effects of construction traffic were also raised by submitters.

80. The existing transport environment is described in Mr Lee-Joe's evidence in which he assessed the likely traffic generation, adequacy of parking and effects on the operation of the surrounding road network. Richard Farrell Avenue is a no exit street approximately 600m long off Ladies Mile (a ‘District Arterial Road'). It is classed as a Local Road in the District Plan, with the purpose of providing direct access to abutting properties and it provides access to two other short cul-de-sac streets serving the surrounding residential area (Norton Place and Hubert Henderson Place). Mr Lee - Joe considered that "the site enjoys good connectivity with the principal transportation network, with ready accessibility to all surrounding catchment areas".21

81. A large part of the assessment of traffic effects has been based on the report from the applicant's traffic consultants, Traffic Design Group ('TDG') which formed part of the application. Information regarding traffic flows had been obtained from Auckland Transport data and from surveys undertaken by TDG, at the intersection of Ladies Mile and Richard Farrell Avenue on 31 July and 3 August 2013. The results indicated that currently, the busiest period is during the weekday PM peak period with flows in excess of 70 vehicles per hour eastbound on Richard Farrell Ave, and with average daily traffic volumes (both directions) of 1540 vehicles per day during weekdays.

Traffic generation

20 Cutler paragraph 27 21 Lee-Joe evidence, paragraph 15


82. Traffic predictions and analysis for the proposed development were based on a survey of the existing trip generation of the retirement village, which was used to identify a trip generation rate for the care units and other units within the proposed development. In evidence, Mr Lee - Joe said surveys of other retirement villages had confirmed that trip generation rates for care units are lower than those for residential units, with the rate for residential units being typically 2.3 times the rate of the care units.22 The TDG report calculated that the proposed development would generate 86 trips per hour (in and out) based on the trips rates for the different types of units, and that this represented an additional 46 vehicles per hour when compared to the traffic generated by the existing retirement village. Mr Bui's analysis using the NZ Transport Agency Research Report 453, estimated new trips on the road network to be approximately 50 vehicle trips per peak hour, which is slightly more (but within the same ball park) than that estimated by TDG.

83. The results of SIDRA modelling of the intersection of Richard Farrell Avenue with Ladies Mile had indicated that additional delays in right and left turns out of Richard Farrell Avenue would occur, but that the queue lengths would not extend by more than one additional vehicle. Mr Bui agreed with the applicant's conclusion that these manoeuvres from Richard Farrell Avenue will operate within acceptable limits and are only marginally higher than the existing situation. Similarly, Ladies Mile is expected to operate with minimal delay for left turns in to Richard Farrell Avenue from the north and with marginal delays for right turns in from the south. One additional vehicle would be queuing on Ladies Mile.

84. In terms of the modelling of the potential effects of this additional traffic on the intersection of Ladies Mile and Richard Farrell Avenue, both during and post construction, Mr Bui agreed with the conclusion of the TDG report that the expected increase in delays and queues associated with the development are likely to be negligible and we accept his advice.

Traffic safety

85. In terms of traffic safety, Mr Lee - Joe's evidence reviewed the NZTA crash records for the period 2009 - 2014 as well as all recorded crashes from the available 2015 records. These revealed a total of four crashes, all of which occurred at the intersection of Richard Farrell Ave and Ladies Mile and all of which were non-injury. No crashes were recorded anywhere along Richard Farrell Ave. He concluded that there are no specific safety issues in relation to the subject site or the adjacent road network and the quantum of traffic associated with the proposed development is relatively low and "can be integrated into the existing traffic environment without compromising this good safety record".23 Accordingly, we find that the proposal would not generate adverse traffic safety effects.

Carparking

86. Mr Lee-Joe described the present village as having the following mix of units, totalling 145 units:

• 30 studio serviced apartments

• 40 one-bedroom apartments

• 36 two- bedroom apartments

22 Lee-Joe evidence, paragraph 53 23 Lee-Joe evidence, paragraph 31


• 7 three-bedroom townhouses and

• 32 care units.

87. Based on a proposed total of 308 units, with a mix of unit types as referred to in paragraph 10 above, Mr Lee-Joe calculated that 294 carparks would be required to comply with the District Plan parking requirements, but he had undertaken surveys of the existing operation to more accurately establish parking rates for the specific site. That analysis resulted in an overall demand of 0.47 spaces per room including visitor/staff parking and residents, and in his opinion 262 spaces would be sufficient to satisfy peak parking demands (167 of for residents and 95 for staff and visitors). This number is less than the 273 that are proposed and 21 spaces short of the District Plan requirements. Mr Bui had undertaken additional surveys of the available spaces within the development and parking on Richard Farrell Avenue at various times. Based on these surveys, Mr Bui agreed with the estimated future parking demand figure of 262 parking spaces, as set out in Table 5 of the TDG report. Mr Bui also took into account that the retirement village owns a van which makes regular trips to popular destinations including supermarkets and shopping malls for the benefit of residents, and that the applicant proposes to increase the frequency of these trips to accommodate increased demand as a result of the redevelopment.

88. Having considered the evidence of the traffic experts who were largely in agreement, we find that adverse effects of traffic generation and parking associated with the proposal would be no more than minor.

Construction Traffic

89. The information provided by TDG indicated that the construction phase would require 1-2 heavy vehicle movements and 20 light vehicle movements during the morning and evening peak hours. Mr Lee - Joe and Mr Bui agreed that the anticipated volumes of truck movements and other construction traffic are not high and are not likely to have any measurable effect on other users of the surrounding road network. The construction phase is to be undertaken in three stages with each construction period expected to run for around 18 months.

90. A detailed traffic management plan would be developed for each stage to ensure that the construction traffic is suitably managed to avoid any adverse effects on the surrounding road network and a draft Construction Traffic Management Plan had been prepared, as attached to Mr Lee - Joe's evidence.24 We accept that this is an appropriate way of managing the temporary effects of construction traffic on the road network.

91. Having regard to the evidence, our overall finding is that the additional traffic flows from the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the operation and efficiency of the surrounding road network. While there will be some additional queuing and delays during peak hours, neither traffic engineer considers that these increases are of any significance in terms of traffic efficiency and safety effects. We accept their advice.

Construction noise

92. The staged development of the site over 10 years has raised concerns from residents over the potential for sustained noise impacts from construction activity.

24 TDG Remuera Gardens Retirement Village Construction Traffic Management Plan dated December 2014


93. Mr Hegley's evidence described the construction methods to be used for each of the three stages, which will include the use of excavators, concrete trucks, delivery vehicles, a tower crane and power tools. He considered that the noisiest activity will be the preparation and pouring of foundations, resulting in a field tested measurement of 74dBA Leq at 15m, excluding screening. Screening would enable the 70dBA Leq to be complied with if the work does not come closer than 8m to the facade of any existing dwelling. He considered that it will be practical to remain at least 12m from the facade of any dwelling and generally more than 15m during foundation works.25

94. The applicant has proposed a Construction Management Plan (CMP) prior to the commencement of works on site for each stage of construction as a condition of consent to address the effects of construction works as well as construction traffic and related potential construction impacts on residents and occupants of adjoining properties.

95. The CMP proposes that all demolition, earthworks and construction works are to be restricted to the hours of 7:30am to 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:00am to 1:00pm Saturday with no works on Sundays or public holidays. The Council's recommended conditions would allow construction activity until 4pm on Saturdays, which Mr Hegley agreed would be acceptable.

96. The applicant has also proposed a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant to include details of proposed management and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with relevant noise levels including compliance testing, procedures to address complaints and contact details.

97. Mr Hegley concluded that it will be practical to control all construction works to within the requirements of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise and the further control of truck noise as recommended in the s42A report.

98. We conclude that the construction period for each stage would not be out of the ordinary and the construction effects can be managed through the measures discussed in the s42A report (which were endorsed by Mr Hegley). While there are three construction phases proposed, there will be a break between each construction phase and the overall construction period is acceptable.

Geotechnical and Stability effects

99. Issues raised by submitters include concerns relating to possible ground stability and subsidence. Many of the submitters raised concerns that the construction of the buildings is likely to result in dewatering and possible lower groundwater levels resulting in subsidence causing damage to the adjoining properties.

100. Section 5.5 and Appendix 6 of the applicant's AEE set out the geotechnical investigations carried out by Tonkin and Taylor, which had concentrated on Stage 1 of the development. Testing had identified that the site is underlain by alluvial deposits with groundwater levels varying across the site due to changes in elevation.

101. Mr Stiles' evidence provided a summary of the investigation undertaken by his Tonkin and Taylor colleagues, which he subsequently reviewed. He considered it likely that the alluvial (Puketoka Formation) soils vary in thickness from zero at the western end of the site to approximately 11m at BH 2 in the southeastern part of the site26. Due to uncertainty over the full extent of alluvium, Mr Stiles considered that a conservative seismic classification for the Stage 1 (Building 1) area would be Class D - Deep or soft

25 Hegley evidence paragraph 4.5 26 Stiles evidence paragraph 29


soil site. Until further site-specific information was undertaken for Stages 2 and 3, the preliminary design process would similarly assume conservative ground conditions.

102. In terms of building foundation design, he considered that structures of 2 storeys or less in height could be constructed using shallow foundations within East Coast Bays Formation soils but for other structures, and for any structures constructed over Puketoka Formation alluvial soils, deep (pile) foundations are "preferred".27 Bored cast-in-situ reinforced concrete piles are proposed, and Mr Stiles concurred with this option as there is less noise and vibration created with this methodology, compared with driven piles.

103. Groundwater levels were also investigated and beneath the proposed Building 1 land they vary from approximately 4.5m in depth below ground level in the northwestern area to approx 1.5m below ground level in the lower southeastern part.

104. We understand that in terms of Stage 1 basement construction, which will require excavation of up to 3.5m in uncontrolled fill and alluvial soils below the groundwater table, temporary retention and groundwater control would be required. As well, permanent retention and groundwater control would be necessary for the completed building. Mr Stiles outlined various retention options but considered that a tanked or 'water tight' design would have minimal impact on groundwater levels whereas a fully drained basement was unlikely to be feasible in view of the risk of adverse effects associated with the resultant long-term groundwater drawdown.28

105. Mr Stiles also considered the risk of ground settlement from the lowering of groundwater levels, but was of the opinion that, with appropriate design (a proposed secant pile cut-off wall which would be in place prior to excavation below the groundwater table), the potential for settlement would be less than minor.29

106. Mr Stiles did not expect the building to impede groundwater flow. He also considered that undertaking earthworks in a controlled manner would help ensure any localised settlement is minimised.

107. Ms McPherson's review of the geotechnical aspects of the proposal on behalf of the Council did not dispute any of the findings in the Tonkin and Taylor report and stated that no evidence was found of any potential slope stability issues from the review and site investigation. She had reviewed the recommendations of the Tonkin and Taylor report relating to earthworks, foundations, retaining structures, temporary and permanent basement retention and tanking and pavement design considered the recommendations to be suitable for the proposed development.

108. The effects of the proposal in terms of groundwater take and diversion associated with the basement excavations were similarly reviewed by Mr Andy Samaratunga, the Council’s Consents and Compliance Adviser, NRSI. Mr Samaratunga assessed the groundwater levels within each of the proposed building sites and considered the likely drawdowns and settlement assessment provided in the Tonkin and Taylor reports. He considered that in relation to Building 1 any potential ground settlement due to ground dewatering and deflection of the retained walls of the excavation was likely to occur very close to the excavation (within 10 m). In his view, any settlement would not be expected beyond this distance and he concluded any adverse effects would be less than minor. Notwithstanding this conclusion, he supported a ground settlement monitoring programme as proposed by the applicant.

27 Stiles paragraph 45 28 Stiles paragraph 51 29 Stiles paragraph 55


109. In relation to Buildings 2 and 3, Mr Samaratunga commented that the groundwater contours have been inferred but that similar ground dewatering and deflection of the retained walls of the excavation would be likely to occur but based on the proposed groundwater and settlement monitoring regime, the effects would be no more than minor.

110. Mr Wren raised the issue of potential subsidence in relation to Dr Todd's property. Having read conditions 65 to 89 of the planner's recommended conditions, noting that they are to address any settlement on land or building nearby he considered that there needed to be more certainty about which properties will be monitored. He suggested that the conditions should be amended to require the results of all monitoring to be provided to the owners of properties subject to monitoring and attached a set of revised conditions to his evidence.30

111. Mr Savage, in his reply, indicated that the applicant would accept some of his amendments and opposed others.

112. We are satisfied that with appropriate engineering design, and based on the expert evidence and technical reports provided, which are not disputed by the Council, the necessary excavations for proposed structures can be constructed with less than minor effects on adjacent properties from potential subsidence and groundwater drawdown. We have already commented on the potential effects of de-watering on retained trees. A Monitoring and Contingency Plan for the excavation and dewatering works would ensure that the situation would be closely monitored post-construction. This could be improved by requiring the monitoring reports to be provided to the Council (and could then be made available to individuals by the Council, if requested).

Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Relevant Provisions of the Relevant Regional and District Plan(s) Objectives, Policies and Rules

Weighting of Regional and District Plans

113. We concur with Mr Rasmussen's opinion regarding the weighting of the PAUP provisions, and do not discuss this aspect further.

Objectives and Policies

114. We have had regard to the relevant objectives and policies of the various plans and policy statements set out in paragraph 48 above. We agree with Mr Rasmussen's comments relating to the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement and the particular relevance of the provisions within 2.6.1 Strategic Objectives and 2.6.5 Strategic Policies Urban Structure that seek to encourage higher density development within the existing urban area in close proximity to existing high density centres and corridors.

115. We note the objectives contained in Chapter 8 which are to maintain water quality and enhance degraded water quality for the protection of natural state open coastal waters, aquatic ecosystems, recreation, food gathering, water supply, cultural and aesthetic purposes. We accept that the applicant is proposing suitable stormwater treatment measures which would ensure the effects on downstream freshwater and coastal receiving environments are no more than minor.

116. The Chapter 11 Natural Hazards objectives and policies seek to ensure that the effects of flood hazards are avoided, remedied or mitigated, and to ensure that redevelopment does not exacerbate the effects of any existing flood hazard. Having considered the evidence, we agree that the proposed mitigation measures would appropriately avoid or

30 Wren evidence paragraph 5.14 and 9.5 onwards


mitigate any adverse effects from flooding and to ensure that the proposal does not exacerbate the effects of the existing flood hazard.

117. To the extent that the proposal provides for redevelopment of an existing site in close proximity to an existing town centre (Remuera) at a greater intensity, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on water quality and natural hazards is generally consistent with the strategic direction of the ACRPS. However, for the reasons which we discuss below we are not satisfied that the proposal adequately addresses amenity issues at a local level.

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water

118. The relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water and the Auckland Council District Plan –Auckland City Isthmus Section are identified and considered in the section 42A report. We accept the conclusions in that report that, having regard to the measures which would be adopted to manage stormwater flows, treat discharges, makes provision for overland flows during high rainfall events, and the conditions that can be placed on the resource consent to ensure that the expected outcomes are achieved, the proposal is in accordance with the relevant objectives and policies of Chapters 2 and 5 of the ALW Plan.

Auckland Council District Plan –Auckland City Isthmus Section (Operative District Plan)

119. The site is zoned Residential 6a under the Operative District Plan and the section 42A report has identified objectives and policies in the following sections of the Operative District Plan that are considered relevant to the assessment of the proposal:

Part 2 – Resource Management

Part 5C – Heritage

Part 5D – Natural Hazards

Part 6 Human Environment

Part 7 – Residential Activity

Part 12 – Transportation.

120. We concur with the assessment and conclusions arrived at in the section 42A report in respect of Parts 2, 5C, 5D, 6 and 12, noting that Part 5C relates to protection of trees. While concerns were raised by some submitters regarding the loss of trees, we accept that the site is capable of intensification and in order to achieve this some protected trees will need to be removed (as well as other established vegetation). We find that tree removal is not inconsistent with the overall outcomes sought by the Plan. The key issues revolve around the outcomes sought by the Operative District Plan in Part 7 - Residential Activity and this is the section which we have focused on.

Part 7 Residential Activity

121. Part 7 of the Operative District Plan sets out resource management issues, objectives, policies, strategy and rules for the development of the residential zones of the district. It includes general objectives and policies relevant to all the residential zones, together with specific objectives and policies for the Residential 6 zone that are relevant to the application. The applicant's assessment of the proposal against the applicable objectives of Part 7 of the District Plan is in Section 6.5 of the AEE and discussed further


in Mr Hook's evidence. Mr Rasmussen has considered these in section 6.7.1 of the section 42A report31.

122. The four planning consultants who have reported on the application or given evidence at the hearing (Messrs Rasmussen, Hook, Cutler and Wren) are all experienced planners. Mr Cutler and Mr Wren, on behalf of various submitters, have reached the opposite conclusions from those arrived at by Mr Hook and Mr Rasmussen.

123. Mr Rasmussen provided the following summary which is helpful in considering the context of this proposal:

124. "The general objectives and policies are all considered relevant to the current proposal including Objective 7.3.1 which seeks to provide opportunities for residential growth through suitable intensification of housing in appropriate locations, Objective 7.3.3 which provides for a broad and flexible range of residential development while protecting amenity, and Objective 7.3.4 which seeks to recognize that certain non-residential activities can be located in residential areas where they maintain and enhance the amenities of the area and take into account the location, scale and generated effects on neighbouring sites. These objectives and associated policies must be balanced against Objective 7.3.2 which seeks to maintain and enhance the recognised character and amenity of residential environments and Objective 7.3.5 which promotes high quality urban design".

125. The specific objective and policies for the Residential 6 zone included in Clause 7.6.6.1 seek to provide for medium intensity residential neighbourhoods in appropriate locations. The objective is supported by a policy "imposing controls on developments which protect the external environment of the site while achieving a reasonable level of amenity for medium intensity developments" and by promoting quality and innovative urban design solutions for larger developments.

126. The methods by which these outcomes are to be achieved include general assessment criteria for discretionary activities as well as specific assessment criteria for housing for the elderly and retirement villages.32 In this regard, the Operative Plan recognises that the built form of retirement villages is different from other types of residential activity typically found in residential areas and that such development must be assessed as a discretionary activity on a site-specific basis in recognition of the potential impacts of greater intensity, bulk and scale.

127. The critical criteria, which were not disputed, relate to the buildings' bulk, scale and form, and their relationship to residential boundaries.

128. Mr Hook drew our attention to the criteria for discretionary activities in Clause 7.7.4.2 which, in relation to buildings, states:

129. "In general buildings or structures should be of a similar or complementary scale and appearance to that of other residential buildings within the surrounding area. Where this is not practicable, buildings should not overshadow or become overly dominant. Methods used to mitigate any adverse effect may include the use of separation distances between the proposal and adjacent sites and the provision of screening".

130. Similar statements reinforce this under the specific criteria for both types of activities (the proposal involves aspects of both), as follows:

31 page 42 of the Hearing Agenda 32 Clauses 7.7.4.3C and 7.7.4.3L


• "new developments shall be compatible in scale with other buildings in the immediate streetscape and adjoining buildings on neighbouring properties. Where larger buildings are inserted in areas with smaller buildings, the publicly visible facades of the new buildings shall be detailed to mitigate the possible perception of unsympathetic bulk" and

• "The scale of the development shall be consistent with the development controls for the zone."

131. Assessment of the proposal was succinctly summarised by Mr Cutler. He stated that in his view "there are tensions evident in Part 7's applicable objectives and policies. On the one hand, those that concern residential growth and intensification lend support to the proposal. Conversely, however, are the objectives and policies that emphasise a need to reinforce distinctive local character, protect on-site amenities, amenity values and the external environment of the site. The enabling objectives and policies do not override the protective ones. Therefore a careful balancing of these competing matters is required".33 All of the planners have made similar statements and we agree that this is the nub of the issue.

132. The experts all agreed that the buildings are not of similar or complementary scale and appearance.

133. In relation to the development control infringements, Ms Mein considered that those relating to height, height in relation to boundary and building coverage were particularly relevant. She concluded that, while the site has capacity to more intensive development, the combination of the height infringements with building bulk and coverage gave an impression of over-intensive use of the site.34 Additional landscaping would balance this to some extent.

134. With regard to private open space within the development, Ms Mein noted that each self–contained unit is provided with private open space (generally a balcony) accessible from the main living area. She considered that, while most of these provide a reasonable level of amenity for occupants, some of the western-facing units will receive very little sunlight until late afternoon for much of the year.35

135. She also observed that alternative layouts for the redevelopment of the site could have resulted in the same number of additional units, but with less impact on adjoining residential properties and a better balance of open space throughout the site. However, she recognised that the applicant is operating within the constraints of existing development on the site and has to manage a staged redevelopment.

136. Mr Hook had concluded, taking into account Mr Thresher's opinions, that the buildings will not be over-dominant, or out of character. Nor would they create adverse privacy effects on adjacent properties, due to the changes in building design, increased building separation at upper levels and stepped form. Consequently, he did not consider that there would be significant adverse effects on neighbourhood and local amenity values and character, and the development would not be inconsistent with the explanations of the respective development controls that the proposal infringes under the Operative District Plan.36

33 Cutler, paragraph 24. 34 Page 656 of the Agenda 35 Ibid 36 Hook evidence, paragraph 57


137. Mr Cutler pointed out that "if there were no need for overall building heights to be controlled there would be no need for the height control as one could rely on the height to boundary controls alone" and also note that the primary purpose of the site coverage control is "to limit the intensity and scale of development in a neighbourhood" which is also infringed.37

138. Mr Wren expressed similar views to those of Mr Cutler regarding the development control infringements in respect to Building 2, which was the main focus of his client's submission, stating that "due to the nature and extent of the shading proposed and the dominance of the building, the proposal does not achieve an appropriate balance between development and the protection of neighbours' amenity".38 Mr Wren also concluded that the proposal is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and the assessment criteria concerning the scale of buildings in such developments.

139. Mr Rasmussen has taken the view that having considered the assessment of effects and particularly the amendments made to the proposal, it is generally consistent with this objective and associated policies as it provides for a more intensive development of the site and has used an appropriate urban design response. However, he acknowledges that "there are instances where it can be considered to be contrary to this objective and associated policies due to the potential for adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining residential sites"39.

140. While we accept that the applicant has made some improvements to the design following public notification, the test is not a comparison of an unsatisfactory proposal with the current amended one, but whether or not the revised proposal satisfactorily addresses adverse effects and will meet the outcomes sought by the Operative District Plan as expressed by its objectives, policies and through other methods. Having considered the opinions of all the experts, including Mr Rasmussen's above comments, we prefer the evidence of Mr Cutler and Mr Wren and find that the proposal is not consistent with these objectives and policies.

141. In relation to the PAUP, Mr Hook identified the relevant objectives and policies for the Single House zone, as that is the zoning currently proposed for the existing retirement village and attached them to his evidence. Objective 1 requires that "Development is of a height, bulk and form that maintains and positively responds to the site and the neighbourhood's low density suburban residential character".

142. Objective 2 is "Development provides high quality on-site amenity for residents and maintains the amenity of adjoining sites'. Mr Hook is of the opinion that the proposal has minimal effect on the streetscape and would be consistent with established neighbourhood character.

143. We were advised however that the PAUP has a special Retirement Village zoning, which the applicant is seeking to have applied to the site. While little weight can be given to the PAUP provisions at the present time, we note that even with a Retirement Village zoning the proposed development would infringe the 11m height limit currently envisaged for that zone.

144. We note that the PAUP objectives and policies for the Retirement Village zone are generally consistent with the Operative Plan provisions discussed above and state:

37 Cutler paragraph 45 38 Wren paragraph 6.2 39 section 42A report, section 6.2


"the controls and assessment criteria seek to achieve quality design outcomes with a focus on the management of the interfaces with adjoining sites",

and the policies include

"ensuring any adverse effects on the character and amenity of the neighbourhood and neighbouring sites are managed (Policy 3) and "Graduate building heights so higher buildings are located away from the zone boundary when the site adjoins open space or a residential zone to avoid significant overshadowing and visual dominance" (Policy 5).

145. In conclusion, we find that the proposal is for redevelopment of a large site which can accommodate a greater level of development than currently exists and both reserves to the north and south, (one public and one private) are of sufficient scale to cope with bulky buildings in relatively close proximity.

146. By locating all new development close to boundaries, the proposal avoids many potential adverse effects on those parts of the retirement village being retained. However, this is at the expense of neighbouring properties, with all the bulk of the redevelopment pushed very close to boundaries.

147. We find that the development as a whole, will have unacceptable adverse effects arising from the change in character and the bulk and form of buildings, their relationship to their neighbours and dominance of the wider environment.

148. The proposal is accordingly inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and the specific provisions relating to retirement villages designed to avoid dominance, privacy, shading and amenity issues on adjacent land.

Section 104(1)(c): Any other matters considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

149. We record that we have had regard to the other matters referred to in the section 42A report in section 6.8 of that report being:

• submissions

• letter from the Council Parks Department

• monitoring

Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA

150. In reaching our conclusions as to whether or not the proposal would achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act under Section 5, we find that while the proposal would promote the social, cultural and economic well-being of the community at large by providing additional retirement housing, this comes at a cost in terms of adverse dominance, privacy and shading effects on adjacent residences which are unacceptable. We are not satisfied that enough has been done to achieve a design solution that maintains an appropriate balance between these competing interests.

151. We do not consider that there are any relevant matters of national importance under Section 6.

152. Under Section 7(c) we conclude that the proposal does not adequately provide for the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.


153. We do not consider that there are any particular matters relating to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi under Section 8. We understand that the Council has followed standard protocols regarding consultation with iwi on this proposal and that the applicant has undertaken consultation with iwi.

154. Overall we conclude that the proposal does not meet the sustainable management purpose of the Act for the reasons stated above.

DECISION 1

155. Under sections 37 and 37A of the RMA, that the time limit for the receipt of submissions be waived to accept the late submission(s) of P B and J Ambridge, D Moffitt, R Hopkins, M U and N M Ranchod, B M Carter, A Fookes and T Azariah (submission numbers 22, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 38 respectively) for the following reasons:

• the above submissions were received within 3 working days of the closing date and their inclusion does not affect the duty of Council to avoid unreasonable delay;

• The inclusion of these submissions allows for a full assessment of the effects of the proposal.

• no person would be adversely prejudiced by granting the waiver;

• the applicant did not oppose the waiver.

156. The late submission received from College Rifles Rugby Union Football & Sports Club Inc is not accepted, as it was incomplete.

DECISION 2

157. Under sections 104, 104B, 105, 107 and 108 of the RMA, consent is refused to the discretionary activity application by Real Living (Properties) Limited for the redevelopment of the existing Remuera Gardens Retirement Village involving the removal of an existing dwelling on the property at 68 Richard Farrell Avenue and the removal/demolition of a number of existing on-site garages and units at 57 Richard Farrell Avenue to enable the construction of three new multi-level buildings at 57 and 68 Richard Farrell Avenue, Remuera being Lot 2, DP 82746 and Part Lot 57, DP 57937 (Consent Application R/LUC/2014/1649)

158. The reasons for this decision are as follows:

a) In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the actual and potential effects of building height, bulk and shadowing on adjacent residential properties are more than minor and are unacceptable.

b) In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and is inconsistent with the environmental outcomes contemplated by the Operative District Plan.

c) In terms of section 104 of the RMA, any positive effects arising from the proposal do not outweigh the adverse effects on the environment, particularly the effects on adjacent residential properties.


d) The proposal will not promote the sustainable management purpose of the Act primarily because the adverse effects associated with the development have not been adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Jenny Hudson (Chair)

Independent Hearings Commissioner

Date: 13 May 2015


consent, pursuant to sections 104 and 104b of...

Documents