District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006
(Notified version 2006)
Street index |
Planning maps |
Text |
Appendices |
Annexures |
Section 32 material |
Plan modifications |
Help |
Notified - Home |
Decision - Home
Hearing reports index
Commercial 2 (Ostend Village) land unit
| Report to: |
The Hearing Panel |
| Author: |
Deborah Kissick |
| Date: |
23 July 2008 |
| Group file: |
314/274016-002
|
1.0 Introduction
This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions')
that were received by the council in relation to the commercial 2 (Ostend
village) land unit of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands
Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18
September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006.
The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for
further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further
submissions was 28 May 2007.
This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management
Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions
on the commercial 2 (Ostend village) land unit. This report discusses the
submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes
recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations
identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in
part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters
raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but
are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.
The recommendations contained in this report are not decisions of the
council. The council will issue its decisions following consideration of the
submissions, further submissions, any supporting evidence presented at the
hearing, and this report. The council's decisions will be released after all the
hearings to the Plan have been completed.
2.0 Statutory framework
This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within
which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the
submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have
been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were
summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne
District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for
evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:
- The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which
they:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA
(s32(3)(a)); and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
- The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by
the extent to which they:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan
(s32(3)(b)); and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the
purpose of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
- (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).
The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural
and physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2)
as meaning:
"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical
resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to
provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health
and safety while—
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding
minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and
ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on
the environment."
Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of
national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set
out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in
achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when
considering submissions.
The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31
of the RMA. These functions are:
"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies,
and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use,
development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources
of the district:
(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development,
or protection of land, including for the purpose of—
(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and
(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,
disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and
(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development,
subdivision, or use of contaminated land:
(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:
(c) ...
(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of
noise:
(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation
to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."
In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:
- The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New
Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
- The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made
operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
- The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
- The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections
7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section
10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New
Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.
3.0 Background
This section of the report sets out background information about the topic
under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with the commercial 2
(Ostend village) land unit
"Ostend village is an existing commercial centre centrally located on
Waiheke. It is bounded by Waitai, Wharf, Putiki, Ostend and Whakarite Roads.
The characteristics of the land unit are:
- Commercial buildings which are mainly stand alone with no continuous
building frontage to the street.
- Most site sizes being over 1000m 2 in area.
- A mix of commercial, residential and community facilities.
- An administrative service centre for Waiheke.
- Belgium Street as the predominant road.
- Its close proximity to the Tahi Road industrial area.
Overall, Ostend village is seen as the administrative centre of Waiheke. It
is further evolving a range of commercial, residential and community functions
which indicates the consolidation of a significant activity centre for Waiheke."
"The resource management strategy is to provide for a mix of activities that
enhances and consolidates the existing village. In order to achieve this, a wide
range of activities are provided for within the land unit.
In addition, good design outcomes are sought so that development enhances the
safety and amenity values of the area. To achieve this, the council will require
resource consent for all new buildings and additions to buildings so that these
matters can be assessed."
4.0 Analysis of submissions
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions
about the commercial 2 (Ostend village) land unit and recommends how the panel
could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The
submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory
matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be
referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate
consideration to these and any other relevant matters.
A list of the submissions which raise issues about the commercial 2 (Ostend
village) land unit together with the related further submissions is contained in
appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions
requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the
Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of
the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.
The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions
and further submissions which were received 'late', i.e. they were received
after the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further
submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing
panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the
failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further
submissions listed in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections
37 and 37A of the RMA.
4.2 General Submissions about the Commercial 2 (Ostend village) land unit
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1250/43,
2291/2,
2291/4,
3061/86,
3709/2
4.2.1 Decisions requested
Submission
1250/43 seeks to remove the reference to Ostend village as the
administrative centre of Waiheke in clause 10a.12.1. It seeks to include mention
of community facilities and activities including the reserve, community hall,
RSA and Saturday Ostend market.
Submission
2291/2 seeks that the objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria be
developed to remove through traffic and enhance public space.
Submission
2291/4 seeks to place service activities such as through traffic, service
activities like banks, video parlours, land agents, dry cleaners, doctor's
surgeries and professional offices from locating on the main street and require
these to locate as in the present Operative District Plan.
Submission
3061/86 relief states that the overriding consideration that applies to
commercial 2 land unit is that it does not contain provisions which permit
development / subdivision that is contrary to maintaining the essential
character and heritage of the island and the type, style and scale of buildings
recognised within that character and island scale in particular.
Submission
3709/2 relief seeks:
The Plan is focused about the motor car, and in these village shopping
centres (i.e. Ostend village) or places does not seek to enhance visitor
activity. Provide for viable businesses in these areas by making those places,
places of great enjoyment quality public spaces. Encourage retail shopping in
the various villages. This will involve negative incentives to the use of the
motor car, and provide positive incentives to provide for quality public space.
Including, traffic separation, mixed use development, design and appearance of
streetscape and matters that enhance retail ambience and profitability,
including achieving a separation of retail activities from other activities such
as land agents, as in the operative Plan for Oneroa.
4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.2.2.1 Submission
1250/43 – remove "administrative centre" wording
Amendments to the introductory statements of the land unit, as proposed in
the submission, will not affect the objectives, policies and rules that apply to
the land unit. Currently commercial, residential and community facilities are
the major uses within the land unit and the Plan seeks to enable well designed
development that adds further to the range of activities within the land unit.
Currently the Auckland City Council service centre is located centrally
within Ostend on Belgium St, as are other community facilities such as the RSA,
medical centre and St. Johns Ambulance rooms. It is noted that the Council have
facilities in Oneroa including the public library and 'Artworks' which are also
considered to be community activities.
It is considered important to place emphasis on the Council's service centre
in Ostend to recognise the importance of this facility in the land unit.
The submission also requests that specific mention be made of particular
community facilities and activities including the reserve, community hall, RSA
and Saturday Ostend Market in the introductory section of the land unit. It is
noted that while the Anzac Reserve, community hall and RSA are located in close
proximity to the commercial 2 (Ostend) land unit they are provided for within
the recreation 2 (community facilities and sports parks) land unit.
The introductory section of the land unit identifies community facilities as
being one of the main functions and uses contained within Ostend. It is
considered that the specific inclusion of particular buildings and land uses for
example, the Saturday Ostend markets does not provide any further emphasis on
the use of the land unit for community purposes.
4.2.2.2 Submissions
2291/2 and
2291/4 – public space and removal of through traffic
Remove through traffic from Ostend village
As part of the consultation undertaken prior to the development of the Plan,
the role of Belgium Street as the main road was discussed. Feedback was received
supporting the use of Belgium Street as the predominant route through Ostend.
Belgium Street has been classified as the primary road and the building lines
and the road closure mentioned in the Operative Plan have been removed to
reflect the status of Belgium Street as a main road.
Removal of through traffic from Ostend would result in increased traffic on
surrounding roads, which border mainly residential land units. It is more
desirable that the main route for traffic be through Belgium Street. The
submission has provided few supporting reasons justifying the removal of through
traffic from Ostend. This is an operational issue and is therefore better dealt
with outside of the Plan review. A full assessment of the effects of removing
through traffic from Ostend, including potential economic effects, effect on the
surrounding roading network and the necessity and cost of such a measure would
have to be considered.
However it is noted that traffic is able to bypass Ostend currently by
travelling on Putiki Road or Waitai Road from Wharf Road. Accordingly, it is
recommended that this submission be rejected.
Enhance public open space in Ostend village
Public open space within Ostend village will be enhanced by individual sites
where a front yard is created and through the landscape amenity controls that
are required within the land unit. While it is recognised that public open space
is an important characteristic of any settlement, within Ostend the focus for
development is on ensuring location of activities, screening, front yards and
landscape amenity controls to enable future development of a good design
standard to enhance general amenity values of the area.
It is acknowledged that currently there is limited public open space within
the land unit, although it is recognised that Anzac Reserve located to the
eastern end of Belgium Street, although not located within the commercial 2
(Ostend Village) land unit, adds to the open space of the Ostend village.
It is therefore recommended that submissions
2291/2 and
2291/4 be rejected.
4.2.2.3 Submissions
3061/86 – the overriding consideration of the land unit
The provisions under clause 10a.12 identify the characteristics of Ostend as
being a generally larger scale mix of commercial and residential development and
community facilities and refer to the land unit as being the administrative
service centre for Waiheke. The objectives and policies within the land unit
seek to ensure that future development in the area achieves good design
standards and generally enhances the amenity values while ensuring that effects
on adjoining island residential land units are avoided or no more than minor.
The key resource management strategies within the land unit are to provide
for a mix of activities that enhances and consolidates the existing village
while ensuring that these activities bring enhanced safety and amenity values to
the area. It is important that the land unit be recognised as allowing for the
enhancement and improvement of Ostend with the objectives and policies included
to ensure that high standards of future development is achieved. It is
considered that the level and type of development provided for in the land unit
is appropriate for the island.
The submission is not particularly clear and the submitter is encouraged to
attend the hearing to expand on this submission but at this time, the submission
cannot be analysed further and as such, it is recommended that the submission be
rejected.
4.2.2.4 Submissions
3709/2 – the focus of the Plan
The submission suggests that provision within the land unit should be made
for viable businesses and that retail shopping is encouraged and that shopping
centres should seek to enhance visitor activity. It is recognised that the
resource management strategy for the land unit is to provide for a mix of
activities that enhances and consolidates the existing village while ensuring
that development improves the safety and amenity values of the area. High
development standards will ensure that Ostend Village will be enhanced,
resulting in a more inviting area for both residents and tourists to visit.
The submission seeks that the amenity of the land unit be enhanced. The land
unit contains clause 10a.12.7 development controls which provide landowners with
clear controls for how new development should be undertaken. It includes
controls relating to landscape amenity, which will soften the appearance of
development and enhance the general amenity of the area. Additional development
controls are contained within part 10c development controls for land units and
settlement areas, which help to control the design and appearance of the
streetscape.
Carparking within the land unit is required to be generally to the rear of
new developments and any parking area which adjoins or faces a residential or
recreational land unit be screened to reduce the impact of the area on
neighbouring land units.
The submitter suggests that the Plan is focussed on the motor car however, it
is considered that the land unit envisages that Ostend Village will provide a
range of activities in close proximity to island residential land units in a
central location for island residents. Ostend Village is readily accessible by
public transport and it is therefore considered that providing for various
activities within the land unit will encourage the use
It is recommended that submission
3709/2 be rejected.
4.3 Submissions about Clause 10a.12.3 Objectives and Policies
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1250/44,
1330/1,
2733/2,
2733/3,
2733/4
4.3.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
1250/44 and
2733/2 support clause 10a.12.3.1 which refers to the commercial, residential
and community functions of the land unit.
Submissions
1330/1* and
2733/3 seek amendments to objective 10a.12.3.2 as follows
"To ensure that new development within Ostend village achieves good design
and safety outcomes and enhances general amenity values, having regard to
functional requirements of particular developments, such as supermarkets."
*It is noted that while the submission requests a change to 12a.12.3.2, the
submitter further carries on to quote objective 10a.12.3.2 so it is assumed that
the reference made to 12a.12.3.2 is an error
Submission
2733/5 seeks to amend objective 10a.12.3.3 as follows
"To ensure that any environmental effect of commercial activity on other
activities within the land unit or on adjoining land units is avoided or
no more than minor in extent or is appropriately remedied avoided or
mitigated."
4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.3.2.1 Submissions
1250/44 and
2733/2 – clause 10a.12.3.1 Objective
The submissions both support the inclusion of Objective 10a.12.3.1 in the
land unit.
Submission
1250/44 supports the provision within the land unit of commercial/business,
residential and commercial activities but seeks emphasis on the community
related functions of the land unit.
It is not clear from the submission exactly what amendments are sought to the
Plan, nor is it clear what the submitter considers community related functions.
Some commercial activities such as private healthcare centres (i.e. medical
centres) could be considered "community related", as could the Housing New
Zealand units located on Belgium Street.
The submitter places some focus on the Anzac Reserve which is not actually
part of the land unit (it is classified as Recreation 2 – community facilities
and sports parks) – though it can be considered as part of Ostend Village.
It is noted that community facilities are provided for as a permitted
activity, within the land unit.
As the relief requested in the submission is not particularly clear, the
submitter is encouraged to attend the hearing to expand on this submission. At
this time, the submission cannot be analysed further and as such, it is
recommended that the submission be rejected.
Submission
2733/2 seeks adoption of clause 10a.12.3.1 and it is recommended that this
submission be accepted as it directly supports the objective.
4.3.2.2 Submissions
1330/1 and
2733/3 – clause 10a.12.3.2 Objective
The submissions request that additional wording be added to objective
10a.12.3.2 so as to specifically have regard to the functional requirements of
particular developments such as supermarkets. It is further explained within the
submissions that as supermarkets are a specific type of retail activity, they
require specific provisions in order to establish their activities and function
effectively.
It is noted that the submitters are the owners of the 'supermarket site'
(Cory Family Trust) and Progressive Enterprises Ltd who develop supermarkets
throughout New Zealand and currently operate the supermarket on Ostend Road. The
'supermarket site' is located at 13-19 Belgium Street and includes sites on
Putiki Road, which back onto the Belgium Street sites.
It is considered that the objectives, policies and rules contained within the
land unit, contemplate larger scale, stand-alone buildings such as supermarkets
within the parameters of scale, form intensity and amenity of the Ostend
village. Furthermore, it is considered that the resource consent process
provides the opportunity for the functional requirements and day-to-day
operations of activities such as supermarkets to be addressed and provided for
in a way that ensures the needs of the community are addressed and any adverse
effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The proposed amendment suggests that the functional requirements of
supermarkets may lead to a compromise on good design, safety and general
amenity. It is not appropriate for the Plan to accept or provide for any
compromise and therefore, it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.
4.3.2.3 Submission
2733/4 – clause 10a.12.3.3 Objective
This submission requests specific changes to the wording of objective
10a.12.3.3 regarding the environmental effects of commercial activity. Changing
the wording of this objective as would be more in line with the provisions of
section 5(2)(c) of the Resource Management Act (1991) and it is therefore
recommended that this submission is accepted in part and objective 10a.12.3.3
changed to read;
"To ensure that any adverse effect of commercial activity on other
activities within the land unit or on adjoining island residential land units is
avoided , remedied or mitigated or no more than minor in extent ."
| Planner's recommendations for clause 10a.12.3 Objectives
and policies
That submissions
1250/44,
1330/1 and
2733/3 be rejected.
That submission
2733/2 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan required to give
effect to this submission.
That submission
2733/4 be accepted in part and the Plan be amended according to Appendix
3. |
4.4 Submissions about clause 10a.12.5 – Rules - activity table
Submissions dealt with in this section:
753/24,
821/26,
836/15,
1190/23,
1250/45,
1330/2,
1330/3,
1552/6,
1552/12,
1552/15,
2733/10,
2733/11
4.4.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
753/24,
821/26,
836/15 and
1190/23 seek that commercial use (e.g. real estate) be moved to Ostend from
Oneroa.
Submission
1250/45 seeks that clause 10a.12.5 be retained without amendments.
Submissions
1330/2 and
1330/3 seek the following alterations to the activity table;
- The construction and alteration of buildings within limitations of the
development controls to comprise a restricted controlled activity
- To provide for 'Park and Ride facilities' as a permitted activity
Submission
2733/10 seeks a base status be applied to activities within the commercial 2
land unit such as an amendment to the Activity Table (10a.12.5) to provide for
the construction and alteration of buildings (activities 1 &2 in table 10a.12.5)
as a controlled activity. In the event that the development controls required
within the Plan are not complied with, the submitters suggest that these
activities should be classified as restricted discretionary activities.
Submission
2733/11 seeks alteration to the activity table including the provision for
the construction and alterations of buildings as a controlled activity.
Submission
1552/6 seeks alteration to the activity table by way of altering the
discretionary status of accommodation for care and accommodation for retired,
elderly or disabled people.
Submission
1552/12 seeks that an intensity control (of 1 person per 185m 2)
is introduced for accommodation for elderly, retired or disabled people to allow
for non-notified restricted discretionary and discretionary activities
Submission
1552/15 relate to 1-18 to
14/18 Belgium Street, Ostend, Waiheke Island and the status of minor
additions and alterations within the land unit
4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.4.2.1 Submissions
753/24,
821/26,
836/15,
1190/23 – commercial use be moved to Ostend from Oneroa
The submissions request that commercial activity (e.g. real estate) be moved
from Oneroa to Ostend. This matter is also dealt with in the hearing report for
the commercial 1 (Oneroa village) land unit. The suggestion is that Oneroa
should become more visitor orientated.
Commercial activities such as real estate agents are included as a vital part
of the make up of commercial 2 but there is also a place for appropriate
commercial activities within commercial 1. The two land units are very different
and therefore the activities located within each land unit, by virtue of their
scale, design and character can also be different.
It is noted that real estate agents are specifically provided for within the
definition of offices in Part 14 of the Plan. Offices are provided for as
permitted activities in both commercial 1 and 2 land units. In RMA terms, there
is no real justification for treating real estate agents as different from other
retail activities.
Ostend village has much larger site sizes than Oneroa and can therefore
support larger scale commercial development, which may not be suitably catered
for within Oneroa village.
It is therefore considered that this submission be accepted in part as it is
agreed that commercial activities such as real estate agents are suitable
activities to be located within commercial 2. It is not agreed that all such
activities should be removed from Oneroa village as this is against the mixed
use nature of the commercial 1 land unit. No changes to the Plan are required to
give effect to these submissions.
4.4.2.2 Submission
1250/45 – clause 10a.12.5 be retained
This submission is accepted in that it specifically supports clause 10a.12.5
Rules – activity table within the land unit.
4.4.2.3 Submission
1330/2,
1330/3 and
2733/11 – Park and Ride facilities and the construction of new buildings
Submissions
1330/2 and
2733/11 relate to the construction of new buildings and the alterations and
additions to existing buildings and seek alteration to the currently proposed
restricted discretionary status of these activities.
It is not clear from the submissions exactly why a status change is requested
for these activities. However, it is assumed that the less restrictive controls
of a controlled or restricted controlled activity status is preferable to those
looking at undertaking these activities. Resource consent applications for
controlled and restricted controlled activities cannot be declined and the
Council has a limited ability to modify a proposal.
Development controls 10a.12.7 are included in the land unit and set out clear
guidelines on location of activities, noise controls, front yards, landscape
amenity controls and screening for which new development is to follow. The
restricted discretionary status provides additional discretion over scale, form
and location and removal of this status could result in development that is
inconsistent with the overall pattern for the land unit.
Submission
1330/3 seeks the inclusion of 'Park and Ride facilities' as a permitted
activity within the land unit. The Plan does not currently include a definition
for this type of activity and therefore this is the first matter that must be
addressed when considering the addition of such an activity into the Plan. The
submitter provides, within submission
1330/4, a proposed definition for the activity which states
" Park and ride means the provision of commuter parking to be made
available at no charge for patrons of public transport."
Submission
1330/3 will be considered in the hearing report for part 14 of the Plan. It
is acknowledged that the definition for commercial carparking being "parking
available to members of the public for a fee" does not fit the requirements of a
park and ride facility if this facility is provided free of charge.
It is anticipated that the hearing report for part 14 will accept that a
definition for park and ride facilities is required and suggest the following
definition:
Park and ride facilities means all day carparking provided for
commuters so that they can use passenger transport (i.e. bus) for all or part of
their journey to and from work.
Using this definition, it is considered that due to the central location of
commercial 2 (Ostend village), recognition that passenger transport is the
principal mode of transportation around Waiheke and the increased demand that
cars are putting on the local road networks, a 'Park and Ride facility' could
provide for and encourage the increased use of passenger transport i.e. buses on
Waiheke.
It is considered however, that a permitted status for an activity such as a
'Park and Ride facility' could result in many facilities being created which
could result in Ostend becoming essentially a car parking area which would
adversely impact the amenity of the area.
The plan includes a provision within 10a.12.7.1 location of activities which
requires that carparking areas located at the ground level must be designed so
that vehicles cannot be seen from the street. This provision aims to ensure that
the amenity of the commercial 2 land unit is enhanced by well designed buildings
and is not dominated by car parking.
It is noted that commercial carparking is allowed for as a discretionary
activity within commercial 1.
It is therefore recommended that the submissions be accepted in part, in that
provision be made for 'Park and Ride facilities' within the commercial 2 land
unit but that a discretionary status be applied to the activity in order for the
Council to apply its discretion when a resource consent application for such an
activity is received.
It is noted that in order to accept this submission, table 11.1 Assessment
criteria needs to be amended to include Park and ride facilities. It is
considered that the following matters will be particularly assessed when
considering an application for a park and ride facility;
- Traffic generation
- Access
- Noise
- Development controls
- Natural environment
- Outdoor activities
- Parking
- Intensity and scale
- Cumulative effects
- Infrastructure constraints
- Crime prevention through environmental design
- Landscaping
- Site facilities and offensive or hazardous activities
- Visual privacy and aural amenity
- Hours of operation
- Lighting
- Reverse sensitivity
4.4.2.4 Submission
1552/6 and
1552/12 – accommodation for care and accommodation for retired, elderly or
disabled people
Submission
1552/6 states that the discretionary status placed on accommodation for care
and accommodation for retired, elderly or disabled people activities within the
land unit is too restrictive. The submitter considers that commercial 2 is a
good location for such activities on Waiheke due to the links to public
transport, social services and employment opportunities.
It is agreed that commercial 2 could be a good location for such activities
due to the link to public resources and the large site sizes, which present
varied options for development for such activities.
The submitter also raises that dwellings are permitted activities within the
land unit and the submitter considers that dwellings and accommodation for
care/community houses generate the same range of effects and accordingly the
activities should hold the same activity status.
It is considered that accommodation for care and accommodation for retired,
elderly and disabled people have a greater range of effects than dwellings
because these activities are often of a larger scale than a single residential
dwelling. For example, a large retirement village or rest home is of a
considerably different scale and intensity than a single dwelling. It is
considered however that the effects could be suitably avoided, remedied or
mitigated within the commercial 2 land unit due to the generally large site
sizes, the development controls and the commercial nature of the land unit and
the other development controls that apply. It is therefore recommended that a
permitted activity status, in line with the status of dwellings, be applied
within the commercial 2 land unit to allow for both accommodation for care and
accommodation for retired, elderly and disabled people.
It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted and that the
activity table 10a.12.5 be amended to reflect this altered status of these
activities.
Intensity Control
Submission
1552/12 seeks to add an intensity control to distinguish between
developments of different sizes to allow for less intense developments to be
considered as restricted discretionary activities (and non-notified), while
still using the discretionary assessment.
The rationale for imposing an intensity control of 1 person per 185m 2
was related to the minimum site area of the land unit and the maximum number of
persons found in a household unit.
To illustrate this further within the commercial 2 land unit the minimum site
area is 1500m 2. The term 'household unit' is defined in part 14 as:
"Household unit means a separate housekeeping unit consisting of any
one of the following:
- One person; and up to five other people unassociated with the household.
- Two or more people related by blood, marriage (whether legal or defacto),
civil union, adoption or legal guardianship; and up to five other people
unassociated with the household.
- A group of not more than eight people unrelated by blood, marriage whether
legal or defacto, civil union, adoption or legal guardianship.
It includes any of the normal domestic household activities, which may occur
on the site."
Using part 3 of this definition the submission has calculated the appropriate
intensity level (person per area of site) as being 1500 ÷ 8 = 187.50m 2.
It is assumed that the intensity level has been rounded down to an intensity
level of 185m 2 per person.
Applying an intensity control as a method of managing the effects of
accommodation for retired, elderly and disabled people is not supported for the
following reasons:
- The submission has does not identify how an intensity rule would be used
to distinguish between developments of different sizes. It is assumed that the
submission seeks that developments, which complied with the intensity control
of 1 person per 185m 2 of site area, be considered as restricted
discretionary activities and those that infringed this rule as discretionary.
However, it is not clear how this relates to the request in
1552/6 for permitted activity status.
- Clause 1.6.2.3 of the Plan explains how restricted discretionary
activities are dealt with in the Plan. This clause states:
"A resource consent is required for a restricted discretionary activity. The
Plan must specify the matters over which the council has restricted its
discretion. The council's ability to refuse the application and impose
conditions is restricted to these matters.
A restricted discretionary activity is a more limited type of discretionary
activity. The Plan uses this approach in circumstances where it is possible to
identify a limited range of effects, which need to be assessed.
In some circumstances, the Plan specifically provides that restricted
discretionary activities do not require public notification or service of
notice. "
It is very difficult to identify a limited range of effects associated with
the accommodation for retired, elderly and disabled people. This is recognised
in clause 11.3 general assessment criteria for discretionary activities where 17
matters are required to be considered for these activities. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to apply a restricted discretionary status to this activity.
- Within the Plan there is potential for restricted discretionary activities
to be notified, the exceptions are when it is explicitly stated as being a
non-notified activity. It is considered that there will be times when it is
appropriate to notify this activity even when it complies with the intensity
levels sought by the submitter.
- A discretionary activity is not considered to be too restrictive due to
the fact that a development with lesser generated effects has the potential to
be processed by way of as non notified activity through a section 94 of the
RMA assessment. Those developments which don't meet these tests will be
required to be notified. Utilising this statutory process to determine which
applications should be notified is considered to be appropriate.
Due to the recommendation above for accommodation for care and accommodation
for elderly, retired or disabled people as permitted activities within the
commercial 2 land unit, the above submission is not relevant and it is
recommended that submission
1552/12 be rejected.
4.4.2.5 Submission
1552/15 – Housing New Zealand Units at 18 Belgium St.
Submission
1552/15 from the Housing New Zealand Corporation relates to the properties
at
1/18 to
14/18 Belgium Road, Ostend. The sites on which 14 units are situated is four
lots with a total land area of 4199m 2. As is stated in the
submission that under the multiple dwellings control, only 2.7 dwellings would
be provided for as a discretionary activity (see clause 10a.12.6(1)). This has
been calculated by dividing the total land area 4199m 2 by the
minimum land unit size 1500m 2 taken from Table 12.1 (Minimum site
areas for land units) contained within the subdivision section (part 12) of the
Plan.
The submission raises concern that the additions and alterations to the
building may be subject to the multiple dwelling control, which would make
additions and alterations a non-complying activity. The submission further seeks
that minor alterations and additions be exempt from this control and suggests
the following wording:
"Minor additions or alterations of the dwellings at Lots 286 to 288 DP 14189
and Lot 304 DP14189 are a permitted activity subject to the development controls
of the plan (excluding the density controls)."
The Plan defines minor additions and alterations in Part 14 – Definitions as:
"Minor alterations and additions to a building means any of the
following:
- Constructing an uncovered deck of natural or dark stained timber. The deck
must comply with the development controls for the land unit or settlement
area.
- Changing or putting in windows or doors in an existing building
- Changing existing materials or cladding with other materials or cladding
of the same colour"
The plan also allows for minor alterations and additions in clause 4.3.2(b)
as follows:
"Minor alterations and additions (as defined in part 14 – Definitions) to the
exterior of existing buildings is a permitted activity in all land units and
settlement areas"
Minor alterations are permitted the minor alterations and additions meet the
definition in part 14.
It is therefore considered that minor alterations and additions are already
provided for within the Plan and there is no requirement for additional wording
to be included to make provision for these specific sites.
It is therefore recommended that submission
1556/15 be rejected.
4.4.2.6 Submission
2733/10 – construction and alteration of buildings
Currently within the commercial 2 land unit the construction of, and external
alterations to, any building is a restricted discretionary activity.
The reason for requiring this restricted discretionary status within the land
unit is to recognise and maintain the high amenity value and village character
of the Oneroa Village.
The Council has intentionally omitted the controlled activity status from the
Plan. In the past, the Council has used the controlled activity status in the
Isthmus Plan, the Central Area Plan and in the operative Hauraki Gulf Islands
Plan. Considerable experience has led the Council to the view that, in the main,
the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the Council with
sufficient discretion to address the adverse effects associated with particular
proposals. This is because the council is not able to decline an application for
a controlled activity but can only impose conditions relating to matters over
which it has reserved control. Not all proposals can be adequately mitigated by
the use of conditions. Some proposals need to be declined or substantially
modified.
Restricted discretionary activities are provided for within part 77B of the
Resource Management Act (1991) (RMA) and are defined as;
"If an activity is described in this Act, regulations, or a plan or proposed
plan as a restricted discretionary activity ,—
(a) a resource consent is required for the activity; and
(b) the consent authority must specify in the plan or proposed plan matters
to which it has restricted its discretion; and
(c) the consent authority's powers to decline a resource consent and to
impose conditions are restricted to matters that have been specified under
paragraph (b); and
(d) the activity must comply with the standards, terms, or conditions, if
any, specified in the plan or proposed plan."
As stated in the definition, a resource consent is required for a restricted
discretionary activity and the Council has the power to decline the application
and to impose conditions on the matters to which discretion has been restricted
in the Plan. A controlled activity, as requested by the submitter (and defined
by the RMA below) also requires a resource consent for the activity, and the
Council is able to impose conditions on the consent, but is unable to decline
the consent should the development be deemed inappropriate.
Controlled activity:
"If an activity is described in this Act, regulations, or a plan or proposed
plan as a controlled activity ,—
(a) a resource consent is required for the activity; and
(aa) the consent authority must grant the resource consent, unless it has
insufficient information to determine whether or not the activity is a
controlled activity; and
(b) the consent authority must specify in the plan or proposed plan matters
over which it has reserved control; and
(c) the consent authority's power to impose conditions on the resource
consent is restricted to the matters that have been specified under paragraph
(b); and
(d) the activity must comply with the standards, terms, or conditions, if
any, specified in the plan or proposed plan."
The potential effects of the construction of, and alteration to, buildings
within the commercial 1 land unit are such that they may not be adequately
controlled by just conditions on a resource consent. The need to control the
scale, form and appearance of buildings are characteristics of development that
are essential in order to maintain the 'village' character of the land unit and
resource consent conditions alone may not provide adequate mitigation for
effects of development not in keeping with these key design principles. It is
therefore more effective to retain a restricted discretionary status and
therefore it is recommended that submission
2733/10 is rejected.
4.5 Submissions about clause 10a.12.7 Rules –development controls
Submissions dealt with in this section:
830/3,
1250/46,
1250/47,
1275/3,
1330/5,
1596/24,
2105/1,
2105/2,
3300/3,
3399/4
4.5.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
830/3,
1275/3,
3300/3 and
3399/4 raise issues regarding the noise levels allowed under clause
10a.12.7.3 Noise controls between activities
Submission
1330/5 seeks to amend clause10a.12.7.1 to delete;
3. Where carparking areas are located at ground level they must be designed
so that vehicles cannot be seen from the street.
Submissions
1250/46 and
1596/24 seeks to provide building setback for all sites fronting Belgium
Street and a 2m planted front yard.
Submission
2105/1 seeks the amendment of clause 10a.12.7.1(1) to clarify the wording of
the clause, as the current drafted is unclear
Submission
2105/2 seeks amendment to clause 10a.12.7.5 Landscape amenity controls, so
that the application of the clause can be widened so it is not limited to
building located adjacent to or opposite an island residential site.
Submission
1250/47 seeks to retain clause 10a.12.7.5 and apply landscape amenity
controls to all sites along the street frontage.
4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.5.2.1 Submissions
830/3,
1275/3,
3300/3 and
3399/4 – Noise Controls between activities
The submissions oppose any increases in commercial noise levels on the island
and seek a reduction of levels, or a return to the levels provided in the
Operative Plan.
Clause 10a.12.7.3 of the Proposed Plan relates to allowable noise levels
between activities within the commercial 2 land unit. This control is not
included in the Operative Plan and provides additional protection for the mixed
use of activities within the land unit.
The purpose of this rule is to control any excessive noise levels that may
arise as a result of activities being carried out within the land unit. It
allows for items such as refrigeration units, music in cafés and restaurants,
machinery etc to be used within the land unit but to be controlled to a level
that is acceptable and is not considered damaging to public health.
It is recognised that due to the size and population of Waiheke, noise levels
experienced on the island are generally less than those experienced within parts
of the Isthmus. It is also considered however, that commercial 2 is a mixed use
land unit and can therefore contain activities, which create a higher level of
noise than a purely residential land unit.
The noise levels allowed in this clause are taken from recommendations of the
New Zealand standard 6802:1999 (Acoustic- Assessment of Environmental sound).
The Standard is concerned with background sound and the assessment of sound from
steady and time-varying sources. The population of Waiheke has increased since
the current plan was made operative in 1996. The allowable noise levels
contained in the standard have also increased. It is considered that an increase
in noise levels is appropriate for Waiheke and particularly the commercial 2
land unit and the levels contained within the Plan are in line with the national
standard. It is therefore recommended that submissions
3300/3,
1275/3 and
830/3 be rejected.
It is considered that the noise levels contained within clause 10a.12.7.3
represent a realistic level of noise for activities within the land unit. This
is bearing in mind that this is a commercial land unit and that these levels
related to the noise that is affecting other activities within the land unit.
Noise from commercial activities on residential use in another land unit is
provided with controls that are more stringent and are outlined in clause
10c.5.4 of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission
3399/4 be rejected.
4.5.2.2 Submissions
1330/5 and
2105/1 – carparking areas
Submission
2105/1, from the Auckland City Council, seeks amendment to clause
10a.12.7.1, as the current wording is deemed unclear.
Currently clause 10a.12.7.1(1) states:
"1. Dwelling(s) must be located above ground floor (street) level, unless:
- Retail or other commercial activity fronts the street and the dwelling(s)
and/or any car parking areas are located behind this retail or commercial
activity."
It is suggested that clause 10a.12.7.1(1) be deleted and replaced with the
following:
"1. Within buildings, non-retail activities must not be located at street
level (except for entrances or access to such activities) unless retail fronts
the street and the non-retail activity is located behind it. This includes
associated carparking. Restaurants, cafes and other eating places will be
considered retail for the purposes of this control."
Or wording to give a like effect.
It is not considered that the suggested wording provides any clarity to Plan
users. It is also considered inappropriate to restrict activities at the street
level to solely retail activities due to the vital contribution the offices and
other commercial activities make to the village.
It is therefore recommended that the submission be rejected
Submission
1330/5 seeks the removal of Clause 10a.12.7.1(3) which relates to the design
of ground level carparking areas.
It is not clear why the submitter is requesting removal of this subclause,
however it is noted that the submitter is the owner of the "supermarket site" at
13-19 Belgium Street and is presumably concerned about the effect of this rule
on development options for this site.
It is considered that the wording of this clause is key to ensuring that
Ostend does not become dominated by carparking areas as new buildings are
developed and to ensure good design and enhanced general amenity values, in
accordance with the objectives and policies of the Plan.
It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected and that clause
10a.12.7.1(3) be retained.
4.5.2.3 Submissions
1250/46 and
1596/24 – front yards
The submissions seek that building setbacks of 2 metres are required for all
sites fronting Belgium Street.
Currently the Plan reads;
10a.12.7.4 Front yards
- For sites fronting Belgium Street:
- 0m; or
- 2m
- Other sites: 4m
No part of a parking or loading space can be located in a required front yard
or in the landscaped area required under
clause 10a.12.7.5.
Currently all buildings along the frontage of Belgium Street are set back,
varying distances, from the road.
Removal of the rule to allow no setback on new buildings fronting Belgium
Street provides a continuation of the existing pattern of development in Ostend.
This 2metre minimum front yard will also provide a consistent minimum
requirement for all new developments and will allow for the open and spacious
character of Ostend to be retained. It is therefore recommended that these
submissions are accepted and that the 10a.12.7.4 should be amended to read;
10a.12.7.4 Front yards
1. For sites fronting Belgium Street a minimum front yard of 2m must be
allowed
a. 0m; or
b. 2m
2. For all other sites, a minimum setback of 4 metres must be allowed
No part of a parking or loading space can be located in a required front yard
or in the landscaped area required under clause 10a.12.7.5
Table 10c.2 directs the Plan user to "refer to land unit rules" when
addressing the requirement for front yards within Commercial 2 (Ostend Village).
As a result of the amended yard requirement, alteration is required to clause
10a.12.7.5 (1)(a) which will be discussed in section 4.6.2.3 below.
Submission
2105/2, from the Auckland City Council and submission
1250/47 seek that the scope of clause 10a.12.7.5 be widened so that the
requirement for planting is not limited to building located adjacent to or
opposite an island residential site. It is recommended in the submission that
the clause 10a.12.7.5(1)(a) be amended to read:
10a.12.7.5 Landscape Amenity Controls
1. Planting along the street frontage:
a. Where a building is location adjacent to or opposite an island
residential site and is not built to the street frontage, at least one
specimen tree (Pb95 at the time of planting) must be provided along the front
boundary of the site for every 7m of site frontage."
Further alteration to clause 10a.12.7.5 is now required as a result of the
alterations to the front yard requirements discussed in section 4.6.2.2 above
and therefore, this submission is accepted in part, and clause 10.12.7.5 should
be altered to read;
10a.12.7.5 Landscape Amenity Controls
1. Planting along the street frontage:
a. For every 7m of site frontage, at least one specimen tree (Pb95 at the
time of planting) must be provided along the frontage.
b. ..."
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to
clause 10a.12.7 Rules –development controls
That submissions
1250/46 and
1596/24 be accepted and the Plan be amended in accordance with Appendix
3.
That submissions
1250/47,
2105/2 be accepted in part and that the Plan be amended in accordance
with Appendix 3.
That submissions
830/3,
1275/3,
1330/5,
2105/1,
3300/3,
3399/4 be rejected |
5.0 Conclusion
This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged
regarding commercial 2 of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf
Islands Section 2006.
The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and
how associated further submissions should be dealt with, and how the Plan should
be modified as a result. These recommendations are made prior to the hearing of
submissions and therefore without the benefit of evidence which may be presented
at that time. At this stage before the hearing, it is recommended that this part
of the Plan be approved, with amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for
the reasons outlined in this report.
| |
Name and title of signatories |
Signature |
| Author |
Deborah Kissick, Planner |
|
| Reviewer |
Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands |
|
| Approver |
Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning |
|
Appendix 1
List of submissions and further submissions
Appendix 2
Summary of decisions requested
Appendix 3
Recommended amendments to the Plan
