5 units at Tairere Auckland

The application is for restricted discretionary resource consent, and as such under s104C only those matters over which council has restricted its discretion have been considered. Those matters are:

H4 Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone

The matters set out at H4.8.1(2) for four or more dwellings on site and H4.8.1(4) for buildings that do not comply with Standard H4.6.5 Height in Relation to Boundary, H4.6.8 Maximum impervious area, H4.6.9 Building coverage, H4.6.10 Landscaped area and H4.8.1(5) for buildings that do not comply with Standard H4.6.5 Height in Relation to Boundary but comply with H4.6.6 Alternative height in relation to boundary.

E12 Land disturbance - District

The matters set out at E12.8.1(1) for all restricted discretionary land disturbance activities.

E10 Stormwater management area – Flow 1 and Flow 2

The matters set out at E10.8.1(1) for development of new or redevelopment of existing impervious areas greater than 50m2 within Stormwater Management Area Control – Flow 1 or Stormwater Management Area Control – Flow 2.

In accordance with an assessment under ss104(1)(a) and (ab) of the RMA, the actual and potential effects from the proposal will be acceptable as:

The proposed development contributes to a variety of housing types at higher densities by providing five residential units in a terraced typology.

The development is in keeping with the planned urban built character of the neighbourhood. The proposal complies with the majority of bulk and location controls and is compatible with the development envelope envisaged in the zone. The buildings are adequately articulated by colour and modulation to minimise the perceived bulk of the building. Adequate setbacks, fencing and landscaping within the site will further mitigate building bulk.

The height, bulk and location of the development will maintain a reasonable standard of privacy and sunlight access, and minimise visual dominance, as the proposal generally complies with the bulk and location standards. Where buildings do not comply with the height in relation to boundary standard, the shading effects on neighbouring sites are acceptable with glazing and outlook over neighbouring properties being identical to a compliant 2 storey development.

The dwellings provide for sufficient outlook and privacy for residents on the site.

The proposal has sufficient site yards per dwelling to provide appropriate waste storage and will be provided by way of a landscaping plan condition.

The effects associated with the intensity of built development, vehicle movements and human activity of the proposal are acceptable and achieves the outcomes of the MHU zone in that it manages the effects of development on adjoining neighbouring sites, including visual amenity, privacy and access to daylight and sunlight whilst achieving high quality on-site living environments and adding to the planned urban built character of the MHU zone.

Adequate water and wastewater capacity is available to service the proposed dwellings. Whilst the public stormwater network does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate

the dwellings, detention and retention tanks for each dwelling and the driveway will detain flows back to pre-development levels before being discharged into the network.

The proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the AUP(OP) which seeks to protect and enhance identified valued streams and associated aquatic biodiversity. Hydrological mitigation is outlined in the submitted infrastructure report by P&P Consulting Engineers Ltd, dated 7 December 2021 and includes stormwater mitigation in the form of 2 x 9,250L (18,500L total) detention tanks located under the driveway to capture runoff from the new ROW, and each individual dwelling will have a 1,000L tank (5 x 1,000L tanks in total) that will discharge stormwater in a controlled manner to the public stormwater system. This has been confirmed by council’s engineer as being acceptable and best option in the circumstances.

With respect to buildings that do not comply with the height in relation to boundary standard but comply with the alternative height in relation to boundary standard:

o Sufficientsunlightaccesstoneighbouringsiteswillbeprovided.

o Overlookingofneighbouringhabitablewindowsandtheoutdoorlivingareaof adjoining neighbours would be similar to that of a compliant 2 storey development and are considered to be acceptable within a suburban environment.

o Principaloutlookfromlivingareasisfocussedtowardstheeasternaccessway and rear (western) yards of sites at ground level, rather than over neighbouring boundaries and is well screened by fencing and landscaping at this level. First floor windows are limited bedrooms and bathroom windows. These do not enable regular or casual overlooking of neighbours beyond that of permitted 2 storey developments within the MHU zone.

o TheHiRBinfringementsalongthenorthernandwesternboundariesrelateto part of the upper floor of the proposed dwellings. On adjoining properties, the physical siting and relationship between the proposed buildings and neighbour’s sites and dwellings benefit from adequate separation between habitable rooms and separation from higher use and higher quality outdoor amenity areas, given driveways, parking, garages and lower amenity side yards directly abut the proposal.

In terms of land disturbance, the proposed earthworks will be appropriately managed and able to be contained within the site. The proposed earthworks will be temporary in nature and will be undertaken such that adverse noise, vibration, odour, dust, lighting will be minimised and managed on the surrounding environment and have been appropriately conditioned.

In terms of positive effects, the proposal will contribute towards housing supply and choice in close proximity to a number of amenities, public transport routes, schools and shops.

With reference to s104(1)(ab), there are no specific offsetting or environmental compensation measures proposed or agreed to by the applicant to ensure positive effects on the environment and/or within the relevant matters of discretion.

In accordance with an assessment under s104(1)(b) of the RMA the proposal is consistent with the relevant statutory documents, insofar as they relate to the matters over which discretion is restricted.

o Under the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part:

o WithregardtoChapterH4Residential–MixedHousingSuburbanZone,theproposal is consistent with Objectives H4.2(1) – (3) and Policies H4.2(1) – (7). The development provides for higher density residential activity that is compatible with the two-storey planned suburban built character of the zone. The bulk and scale of the development will maintain a reasonable standard of sunlight access and privacy for adjoining sites. The effects of visual dominance on adjoining sites are minimised. Sufficient landscaped areas are still provided.

The proposal maintains reasonable amenity value for adjoining sites whilst providing for a higher level of residential amenity for the occupants by providing additional accommodation and living space. The overall level of building coverage, impervious coverage and landscaping on site, including providing sufficient front yard landscaping and outdoor grassed space at the rear or side of the dwellings is consistent with the plan.

o WithregardtoChapterE12Landdisturbance–District,theproposalisconsistentwith Objective E12.2(1) and Policies E12.3(1) – (6). The proposed earthworks are necessary for the residential activity proposed and will avoid or mitigate adverse construction related effectsthrough sediment and erosion control, and other measures. No items of natural or cultural heritage value are identified on the subject site.

o The proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the AUP(OP) which seeks to protect and enhance identified valued streams and associated aquatic biodiversity, and in particular the policy framework under policies E10.3(1) and (2), and on a catchment level policies E1.3(1) – (5), (8) –(9) as referenced in assessment criterion E10.8.2(1). This is as the proposal has provided hydrological mitigation (in accordance with Table E10.6.3.1.1. Hydrological mitigation requirements). The mitigation is outlined in the submitted infrastructure report by P&P Consulting Engineers Ltd, dated 7 December 2021 and includes stormwater mitigation in the form of 2 x 9,250L (18,500L total) detention tanks located under the driveway to capture runoff from the new ROW, and each individual dwelling will have a 1,000L tank (5 x 1,000L tanks in total) that will discharge stormwater in a controlled manner to the public stormwater system. This has been confirmed by council’s engineer as being acceptable and best option in the circumstances, consistent with standard E10.6.4.1.

As a restricted discretionary activity, the other matters that can be considered under s104(1)(c) of the RMA must relate to the matters of discretion restricted under the plan. In this case, there are no other relevant matters to consider.

Any consideration of an application under s104(1) of the RMA is subject to Part 2. The Court of Appeal in R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2018] NZCA 316 has held that, in considering a resource consent application, the statutory language in section 104 plainly contemplates direct consideration of Part 2 matters. However, the Court considered that where a plan has been competently prepared under the RMA, it may be that

in many cases there will be no need for the Council to refer to Part 2. Though if there is doubt that a plan has been “competently prepared” under the RMA, then it will be appropriate and necessary to have regard to Part 2. That is the implication of the words “subject to Part 2” in s104(1) of the RMA. In this context, this proposal achieves the sustainable management purpose of the RMA under Part 2 because the proposal will allow the occupants to provide for their future housing needs without impacting on people in the surrounding area. There are no matters under the Treaty of Waitangi or other matters of national importance considered relevant to this application.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and will enable the development with less than minor effects on: