Hearings Commissioner

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Hearings Commissioner will be held in the Whangarei Library, May Bain Room, Rust Avenue, Whangarei on:

Thursday

18 October 2018 11am

Application by Antony Lydiard & Sarah Hirst

Commissioner Bill Smith

Index Page No

Authorisation Sheet ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Environment Planner (Consents) Report ...................................................................................................... 3

Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Attachment 1: Application (as lodged) ........................................................................................................ 33

Attachment 2: Plans ................................................................................................................................... 78

Attachment 3: S92 Information .................................................................................................................... 86

Attachment 4: Submissions ....................................................................................................................... 119

Attachment 5: Engineering Review Report ............................................................................................... 126

Attachment 6: Relevant Correspondence ................................................................................................. 134

Attachment 7: District Plan Chapters ........................................................................................................ 155

Attachment 8: Residential Activity Practice Note ...................................................................................... 191

Attachment 9: Management Plan ............................................................................................................. 195

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: mailroom@wdc.govt.nz

06/337807 October 2010

Requirements and procedures for the conduct of hearings under the Resource Management Act A General 1 The applicant and every person who has made a submission and stated that they wish to be

heard may speak and call evidence. Alternatively they may be represented by an advocate and may call experts or witnesses to give evidence on their behalf.

2 The hearing procedure is to be as informal as possible and where appropriate recognise Tikanga Mãori. If evidence is to be given in Mãori, Council is to be advised at least one week before the hearing so that an interpreter can be arranged.

3 Any person wishing to make a statement at the hearing is requested to make it in writing and provide at least eight (8) copies for use of the commissioner. In line with environmental court practice, it is preferable if written evidence to be presented could be circulated to all parties (including the reporting planning officer) a few days before the hearing. A report on the proposal by Council’s planning staff will be forwarded as soon as it is available.

4 Irrespective of the reporting officer’s recommendation on the application, the commissioner will make his/her decision on the application, based on evidence provided at the hearing and accordingly applicants/submitters are strongly urged to attend to support their case.

B The hearing 1 The commissioner opens the hearing and will ask parties to introduce themselves and their

witnesses. 2 The applicant presents his/her case including any supporting evidence from witnesses. 3 Parties making submissions in support of the application then proceed with their evidence

and at the same time have the right to comment on any part of the evidence put forward by the applicant.

4 Parties making submissions against the application then proceed with their evidence and at the same time have the right to comment on any part of the evidence put forward by the applicant.

5 Council’s reporting officer(s) speak(s) on his/her report, which having been circulated, is taken as read and is available to answer questions.

6 Only the commissioner may question any of the parties to the application. No cross examination is allowed.

7 Only the applicant is given the opportunity to have a right of reply. This gives him/her the chance to clarify matters raised in submission but not to present new evidence. There is no right of reply to a Section 357 objection hearing.

8 The commissioner adjourns the hearing for a decision. The applicant and any persons who made a submission will be notified in writing of the decision no later than 15 working days after the conclusion of the hearing unless otherwise advised by Council.

Report to Hearings’ Commissioner Bill Smith on a Resource Consent Application

This land use consent application was lodged by Reyburn and Bryant Limited on behalf of Sarah Hirst and Antony Lydiard and was reported on by Councils Planner (RMA Consents) Kathleen Hudson.

The applicant proposes to establish six holiday apartments on a 2.47 ha site at 2108 Whangarei Heads Road (Lot 2 DP 208573). The site is zoned Living 3 Environment under the Operative Plan and Rural Village Residential Environment under Proposed Rural Plan Change 85C. The apartments will be contained within one 221m2 double storey building, with a maximum height of just under 8.0m. Each apartment will have one bedroom, one bathroom, a lounge (including a fold out bed) and kitchenette, with the apartments catering for up to 23 people in total. The holiday apartments will be accessed via a new vehicle crossing and driveway adjacent to the north- western boundary of the site, with a car park provided to the west of the units. The manager’s residence for the units will be within the existing main residential unit on the site, to the east of the proposed units.

The proposal is a Discretionary Activity.

This report has been prepared in accordance with Section 42A Reports to Local Authority under the Resource Management Act 1991. In accordance with Section 42A(1A) and (1B), the report is prepared on the basis that it does not repeat information included in the application. Where any information in the application is adopted under Section 42A(1b)(a) or (b), this will be stated in the report.

17th September 2018

Kathleen Hudson - Planner (RMA Consents) Date

This report was peer reviewed by the following signatory:

17 September 2018

Katie Martin – Team Leader (RMA Consents) Date

1

Statement of staff qualification and experience

Kathleen Hudson – Planner (RMA Consents)

My name is Kathleen Hudson, I am a Planner employed full time at the Whangarei District Council. I am Intermediate member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and have been working as a resource consents planner in the Auckland and Whangarei Districts. I hold a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (Hons) from Massey University.

I have been in my current position at the Whangarei District Council since May 2017, and my role has involved processing land use and subdivision consents. Prior to this role, I was employed as an Intermediate Planner at Auckland Council. During this employment, I undertook a variety of land use and subdivision resource consent processing work as well as subdivision post approval work.

The above staff are familiar with the Environment Court’s ‘Code of Conduct’ for expert witnesses and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in presenting hearing evidence to the Commissioner.

Vladimir Rozov – Senior Environmental Engineering Officer

I am a civil engineer employed by Whangarei District Council in the Resource Consents department. I have the title of Senior Environmental Engineering Officer. I qualified from a Polytechnic University (in former USSR) in 1981 with a Bachelor degree in Industrial and Civil engineering and I am a graduate member of the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc. I have many years’ experience in roading/drainage/earthworks/civil construction and I have worked for the Whangarei District Council as Environmental Engineering Technician, Support Officer, and Senior Environmental Engineering Officer since 1999. My position within the Resource Consent department requires me to assess all engineering aspects of resource consent applications using my technical knowledge and oversee construction works to ensure compliance with Council Standards.

The above staff are familiar with the Environment Court’s ‘Code of Conduct’ for expert witnesses and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in presenting hearing evidence to the Commissioner.

2

Section 42A Hearing Report

Hearing by: Hearings Commissioner Bill Smith for a Discretionary Activity land use proposal by Sarah Hirst and Antony Lydiard. The proposal is for the establishment of 6 holiday apartments catering for up to 23 people, in the Living 3 Environment.

Evidence by: Kathleen Hudson

Planner (RMA Consents)

File Refs: LU1700183 P101132

1 The Proposal 1.1 The application prepared by Brett Hood of Reyburn and Bryant Limited on behalf of Sarah Hirst

and Antony Lydiard dated November 2017 is contained in Attachment 1 of this report. The application includes a full description of the proposal in section 3, and is supported by a site plan and building plans. In summary, the application is for the establishment and operation of six holiday apartments on a 2.47 ha site at 2108 Whangarei Heads Road. The site is zoned Living 3 Environment under the Operative Plan and Rural Village Residential Environment under Proposed Rural Plan Change 85C. The apartments will be contained within one 221m2 double storey building, with a maximum height of just under 8.0m. Each apartment will have one bedroom, one bathroom, a lounge (including a fold out bed) and kitchenette, with the apartments catering for up to 23 people in total. The holiday apartments will be accessed via a new vehicle crossing and driveway close to the western boundary of the site, with six car parks provided to the west of the units. The manager’s residence for the units will be the existing house on the site to the east of the units.

Note the holiday units will function essentially as motel units, thus for the purpose of clarity and alignment with the terminology used in the District Plan they will be referred to as motel units.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The application was lodged on the 15th of November 2018 by Brett Hood of Reyburn and Bryant Limited (agent) on behalf of Sarah Hirst and Antony Lydiard (the applicants). A copy was forwarded to Councils Development Engineer Vladimir Rozov.

1.2.2 A copy of the Development Engineers Report is included in Attachment 5 to this report.

1.2.3 Section 92

After reviewing the application and undertaking a site visit on the 23rd of November 2017, a formal request for information was issued pursuant to section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) on the 30th of November 2017 seeking the following;

• Clarification regarding the maximum expected occupancy of the motel units. The application stated that the apartments were designed to cater for 12 people in total, however each unit provides one double bed and one fold-out bed suggesting a higher potential maximum occupancy.

• Information about the managers residence including its location on site, accessibility from the units, how the managers will be contactable by staff and guests. Information was also requested as to how many staff would be involved in the operation.

• The application stated that less than 30 traffic movements would be generated by the activity in a 24 hour period. Clarification was sought as to how this figure was reached as it appeared to be low given the nature of the proposal.

3

• It was requested that a plan be provided showing the car park arrangement for guests, managers and staff, and demonstrating compliance with the WDC Environmental Engineering Standards 2010.

• It was requested that a specific assessment be provided regarding effects on the closest neighbouring site, being Lot 1 DP 324157 (2104 Whangarei Heads Road).

• Information was requested regarding the impact the proposal would have on the future development potential of the site, noting that the site is 2.47 ha and is located in the Living 3 Environment which provided for subdivision of lots down to 2000m2 as a Controlled Activity.

• It was requested that justification be provided as to why it is not proposed that the activity be screened from the road and neighbouring sites, as per Rule 36.3.1(g) of the District Plan.

• It was requested that a Management Plan be prepared detailing office hours, alcohol consumption, noise, rubbish management and power of managers to evict as well as any other measures deemed necessary for the management of the facility.

1.2.4 Subsequently, a response was provided from Mr Hood on the 6th of December (received by Council on the 16th of January 2018) addressing the matters raised. A summary of this response is provided below;

• Regarding occupancy, Mr Hood explained that while it is possible that each unit may be occupied by up to four people, and the units could therefore cater for more than 12 people at one time, it is unlikely that all would be occupied to maximum capacity simultaneously, and an expected occupancy of two persons per unit is more realistic. Additionally, information was provided regarding the average occupancy rate for motels in Whangarei which is approximately 60%.

• It was explained that the Managers Residence would be located in the existing residential unit on the site (as the site owners would manage the holiday units). The managers residence will be accessible from the units via a footpath. It was also explained that the staff involved in the operation would be the applicants, with independent cleaners employed.

• It was clarified that the estimated vehicle movements is based on four trips per unit plus six additional contingency trips per day for cleaners and delivery’s etc. In relation to this matter, further information was requested by the Council Planner as to how these figures were reached.

• Updated site plans were provided showing vehicle tracking curves and carpark dimensions. • An assessment was provided as to the effects of the proposal on Lot 1 DP 324157 (2104

Whangarei Heads Road). Specifically, it was stated that the visual impact of the development would be the same or similar to a typical residential use of the site given the building complies with bulk and location standards. It was also emphasised that the proposal is in keeping with the noise and traffic standards for the Living 3 Environment and thus potential effects fall within the permitted baseline for the site. Adverse effects on this neighbouring site were thus concluded to be less than minor.

1.2.5 On the 12th of February 2018, a second response was provided to the request for further information. Specifically, the agent provided information from a New Zealand Transport Association [NZTA] research document titled “Trips and parking related to land use November 2011” (document provided in attachment 3) which outlined that motel units generate three traffic movements per day on average. The agent also provided a draft Management Plan covering office hours, alcohol consumption, noise, cleaners, manager’s availability, power of managers to evict and information to unit occupants.

1.2.6 After undertaking an assessment of the proposal, the application was limited notified to one party on the on the 12th of March 2018. One submission was received on the 12th of April 2018, with the submitters indicating they wish to be heard. I will further address notification matters later in the report.

1.2.7 There are identified archaeological features in the vicinity of the site, close to the northern and southern boundaries as shown in Figure 4.0. No investigation has been carried out into the potential presence of archaeological features within the site itself as part of the application. As such, the application was sent to representatives at Heritage New Zealand for comment on the 13th of March 2018. It was recommended by a representative from Heritage New Zealand that an archaeological assessment of the site be undertaken.

4

1.2.8 Pre- hearing meeting

At the applicant’s request, a pre- hearing meeting was held at Council Offices on the 28th of June 2018. The meeting was held without prejudice, with an intention to see if agreement could be reached as to an acceptable development. The meeting was attended by Brett Hood (Planner for the applicants), Sarah Hirst and Antony Lydiard (applicants), Vaughan Smith (agent for the submitters), Aaron Taylor and Maia Russell (submitters), Kathleen Hudson (WDC Resource Consent Planner), Katie Martin (WDC Resource Consents Team Leader), and was chaired by WDC Councillor Greg Innes.

As a result of the meeting, additional information was circulated by the agent to the submitters for comments on the 10th of July 2017.

1.2.9 The submitter responded on the 17th of July 2018 via Mr Smith stating that agreement was not able to be met to address their concerns, but they were but were happy to consider other alternatives.

1.2.10 Mr Hood advised on the 24th of August 2018 that the applicants wished to proceed with a hearing based on the original application as notified.

2 Site and Surrounding Environment Description 2.1 Sections 2.1 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects [AEE] included with the application

addresses the subject site whilst section 1.6 covers the relevant memorials on the certificates of title. Having undertaken two site visits, one on the 23rd of November 2017 and another on the 27th of June 2018, I confirm that this is an accurate site description and it is adopted for the purposes of this report.

2.2 Zoning, overlays and surrounding environment description

The environment surrounding the subject site comprises sites of various sizes and zoning. Adjacent lots to the north, east and west are zoned Living 3 Environment (proposed Rural Village Residential under Plan Change 85C), and are typically smaller than the subject site. Land further to the north and east, is zoned Coastal Countryside (Proposed Rural Countryside under Plan Change 85A). There is some Living 1 Environment, zoned (proposed Rural Village Residential under Plan Change 85C) land further to the north-west along Whangarei Heads Road, as well as three Business 3 Environment Lots (proposed Rural Village Centre under Plan Change 85C). The large area of land directly adjacent to the south is Whangarei District Council reserve land. Nearby residential zoned land contains typical residential style buildings, with a few sites yet to be built on. It is noted there are several established small scale accommodation facilities in the McLeod’s Bay area (BnB, book-a-bach and self- contained accommodation). The Business 3 Environment land along Whangarei Heads Road contains a café.

Under the Operative District Plan, the site and surrounding environment is subject to a High Kiwi Presence Overlay and has two identified archaeological sites in close to the southern boundary, with numerous other archaeological sites in the wider area. Under the Proposed Rural Plan Changes, the site is subject to a Proposed Coastal Overlay (PC 87) and a Proposed High Natural Character Area overlay under Plan Change 114.

The site and wider area has views to the coast to the north- west, and Mt Mania to the north- east. Mt Mania and the elevated portion of the reserve land to the south of the subject site are both subject to Proposed Outstanding Natural Character Area overlays under Plan Change 114.

5

Figure 2.0 Proposed Rural Plan Change Zoning

Figure 4.0 Proposed Resource Area overlays

Figure 1 Operative Plan Zoning

Figure 3.0 WDC GIS identified archeological sites

6

Images of the site are provided below

Image 1.0 Looking north-west towards building site and Lot 1 DP 324157

Image 2.0 Existing vegetation along southern side of building site

Image 3.0 Looking north-east from building site towards Mt Mania

Image 4.0 Looking south at building site from Whangarei Heads Road

Image 5.0 Driveway for existing house Image 6.0 Vehicle crossing for existing house

7

Image 7.0 Looking north- west along Whangarei Heads Road (image from google street view)

Image 8.0 Looking south- west along Whangarei Heads Road (image from google street view).

3 District Plan Assessment- Reasons for consent 3.1 Reasons for consent

3.1.1 Rule 36.3.1 (e) Activities Generally

An activity is a permitted activity if commercial or industrial activities do not open for visitors, clients or deliveries before 8:00am or after 6:00pm on any day.

Discretionary Activity- The proposal involves a commercial activity that is open for visitors 24 hours.

3.1.2 Rule 36.3.1 (e) Activities Generally

An activity is a permitted activity if it is a commercial or industrial activity which is screened from view from roads and adjoining sites by fences, planting or buildings.

Discretionary Activity- The proposal is not screened from Whangarei Heads Road or adjacent sites.

Note: Consent may be required under the following additional standards, however the application does not currently include sufficient information to make this determination.

3.1.3 Rule 36.3.6 Traffic Movements

Any activity is a permitted activity if:

a) It does not generate more than 30 traffic movements in any 24-hour period, excluding residential or temporary activities. Activities not complying with this standard require consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Discretion is restricted to:

i. Manoeuvring requirements;

ii. Need for acceleration and deceleration lanes;

iii. Type, frequency and timing of traffic;

iv. Safety of pedestrians;

v. The availability of other roads for access for proposals leading onto arterial roads or state highways;

vi. Traffic safety and visibility;

vii. Effects on the amenity of the locality;

8

viii. Effects of dust;

ix. Need for forming or upgrading roads in the vicinity of the site;

x. Need for traffic control

The application states that the proposal will generate a maximum of 30 traffic movements in a 24 hour period.

3.1.4 Rule NAV.6 Permitted Activities Unless specifically stated otherwise, any activity shall be a permitted activity provided it complies with all of the noise standards given in the following section(s) NAV.6.1 – NAV.6.15 and all other relevant Environment and District Wide rules.

Specifically, in the Living 3 Environment, noise levels shall be no more than 55dBLAeq between 7:00am and 10:00pm, and 45dBLAeq between 10:00pm and 7:00am.

Activities not complying with this standard require consent as a Discretionary Activity.

When assessing discretionary applications pursuant to these sections, the assessment shall include (but is not limited to):

a. The level of sound likely to be received

b. The existing ambient sound levels

c. The nature and frequency of the noise including the presence of any special audible characteristics

d. The effect on noise sensitive activities within the environment

e. The likely time when noise will be audible and the extent of the exceedance of the noise rule at that time

f. Whether the level and character of the noise is below recognised guidelines or standards for the preservation of amenity

g. The potential for cumulative effects to result in an adverse outcome for receivers of noise

h. The effects of noise on recreation or conservation areas within the Open Space Environment.

i. The value and nature of the noise generating activity and the benefit to the wider community having regard to the frequency of noise intrusion and the practicality of mitigating noise or using alternative sites.

j. Any proposed measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate noise received off-site

k. The potential for any reverse sensitivity effects

l. The level of involvement of a Recognised Acoustician in the assessment of potential noise effects and/or mitigation options to reduce noise.

m. The ability of noise sensitive activities to unduly compromise the continuing operation or future development of other lawful activities

3.1.5 Rural Plan Change

Under Rural Plan Change (PC 85C) the subject site and surrounding sites in the locality are proposed to be rezoned to Rural Village Residential Environment. In this Environment, under Eligibility Rule RVE 2.1.1, commercial activities have a Non- Complying activity status. The application was lodged on the 15th of November 2017, with the decisions on the Rural Plan Changes notified on the 17th of January 2018. Pursuant to section 88A of the RMA, the application retains the applicable activity status from the date of lodgement.

3.1.6 As such, overall, the proposal is assessed as a Discretionary Activity.

3.2 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011

3.2.1 The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NES Contaminated

9

Soils) were gazetted on 13th October 2011 and took effect on 1st January 2012. Council is required by law to implement this NES in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The standards are applicable if the land in question is, or has been, or is more likely than not to have been used for a hazardous activity or industry and the applicant proposes to subdivide or change the use of the land, or disturb the soil, or remove or replace a fuel storage system.

3.2.2 The Applicant’s agent has provided a search of Council records was undertaken on the 9th of October 2017, which involved viewing the property record for the site. The search has not identified any indication of current or previous activities in the area of the site that are included on the HAIL. As such, it is concluded that this proposal is not subject to the NES.

4 Notification, Submissions and Written Approvals 4.1 Notification

4.1.1 Following an assessment under section 95 of the Act, it was concluded that the effects of the proposal on Lot 1 DP 324157 (2104 Whangarei Heads Road) adjacent to the west of the proposed development location are potentially minor. The location of this property is shown on the map below with a star.

4.1.2 The application was notified to the owners of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road on the 12th of March 2018.

4.2 Submissions

4.2.1 The period for submissions opened on the 12th of March 2018 and closed on the 13th of April 2018. One submissions in opposition of the proposal was received from Aaron Taylor and Maia Russell, being the owners of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

4.2.2 A full copy of the submission is contained in Attachment 4 of this report. The specific comments within the submissions are summarised on the following table;

10

Table 1 – Summary of Submission

Name Issues and relief sought Wish to be heard

Aaron Taylor

Maia Russell

Oppose the application for the following reasons;

• Submitters’ own and live in the property directly adjacent to the north- west of the proposed development site.

• The privacy and well- being of the family will be compromised by the commercial activity which will overlook their outdoor living space.

• The motel is oriented so that all effects are externalised onto the submitters’ property.

• The amenity of the site will be compromised by vehicle movements, lighting from the unit, noise, and the use of the decks by motel guests as these will look directly into the outdoor living area of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

• Concern that noise from vehicles, and people talking late at night and early morning will be intolerable, and that no appropriate noise assessment has been undertaken.

• Concern that adverse effects cannot be adequately mitigated in the Environment

• Concern that the management plan will be ineffective, particularly as the manager residence will not be open after 6pm and before 8am, is remote from the motel units and activity at the front of the units will not be visible from the residence.

• Concern that the assessment of environmental effects provided with the application is inadequate as it provides an assessment based on 12 guests when the units are designed to cater for up to 23 guests.

• Concern that no traffic impact assessment has been undertaken and traffic volumes will be higher than what has been stated in the application and then would be expected with a typical residential activity.

• Concern that there will be poor visibility and safety issues from the proposed new vehicle entrance and that required sightline distances will not be met.

• Concern that no details of signage has been provided.

The submitters expressed a view that the application should be declined.

Yes

4.2.3 A number of letters were received in opposition of the application from the owners of other sites in the area. As these parties were not formally notified of the application, the matters raised in these letters cannot be taken into account in consideration of this application. It is noted however that many of the matters raised are similar to those raised by the submitters.

5 Resource Management Act 1991- Section 104 Considerations 5.1 Section 104

5.1.1 Section 104 provides the matters, subject to Part 2 of the Act, that Council must have regard to when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received. These matters are:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

11

(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

5.2 Section 104B

5.2.1 Section 104B outlines Council’s powers when making a determination on a Discretionary or Non-Complying activity. Section 104B states that:

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority —

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

5.3 The following assessment addresses the relevant provisions of Section 104 and recommends a decision on the application.

6 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (S104(1)(a)) 6.1 Definition of effect

6.1.1 Section 3 of the Act defines the term ‘effect’ as including –

(a) any positive or adverse effects; and

(b) any temporary or permanent effect; and

(c) any past, present or future effect; and

(d) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects – regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes-

(e) any potential effect of high probability; and

(f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.” 6.1.2 The potential effects of this proposal are assessed to relate to the following:

• Permitted baseline comparison • Character and Amenity Effects • Traffic and Parking Effects • Noise Effects • Infrastructure and Servicing

6.2 Permitted Baseline

6.2.1 In terms of determining whether the adverse effects of the proposal are more than minor, section 104(2) of the Act provides that Council ‘may’ have regard to the permitted baseline in order for effects on the environment that are permitted under the Plan (or by way of resource consent) to be disregarded.

6.2.2 Within the Living 3 Environment, residential units can be established at a density of one unit per 2000m2 net site area. Thus, with a land area of 2.4ha, the site could potentially accommodate

12

10- 11 additional residential units, provided each has 2000m2 of land area directly associated with it.

6.2.3 With specific regard to the proposed building, all relevant bulk and location standards of the Operative District Plan are complied with including building height, coverage, yard setbacks, building to access setbacks and daylight angle standards. The physical form of the building will thus be within the range of effects permitted by the plan.

6.2.4 In relation to noise, an activity is permitted in the Living 3 Environment provided it complies with the residential noise standards, specifically 55dBLAeq between 7:00am and 10:00pm, and 45dBLAeq between 10:00pm and 7:00am. No noise assessment has been provided with the application thus it is unclear whether or not the proposal will comply with this. This is discussed further, later on in this report.

6.2.5 With regards to the commercial aspect of the proposal, in the Living 3 Environment a commercial operation can be undertaken as a permitted activity under the following circumstances; • Is not open for visitors, clients or deliveries before 8:00am or after 6:00pm • Is screened from view from the road and adjoining sites by fences, planting or buildings • Is undertaken in conjunction with a residential activity on site • Generates no more than 30 traffic movements in a 24 hour period • Parking provided in accordance with appendix 6 of the District Plan. Specifically for motels,

parking is to be provided at a rate of one space per motel unit, plus two for the managers residence.

• No more than one sign to be displayed per site, with this having a maximum height of 2.0m and maximum size of 1.0m2.

6.2.6 In this instance, the proposal does not comply with a number of these standards, specifically it will be open for visitors before 8am and after 6pm and it is not screened from the road or neighbouring sites. Additionally, traffic movements and noise levels may exceed the permitted thresholds, with further assessment of this provided later in this report. Parking will comply with the required standard. No information has been provided about signage thus no assessment against the permitted standard can be made.

6.2.7 It is noted the “residential activity” definition in the District Plan allows for some form of visitor accommodation as permitted in Living Environments, however the proposal is not considered to fall within this definition. This is discussed further below.

6.3 Response to the permitted baseline assessment presented in the application

6.3.1 The application includes an assessment of the permitted baseline in section 5.2, and places significant weight on the permitted baseline in terms of discounting adverse effects of the proposal. While it is agreed that permitted baseline can be applied to discount the physical form of the bulk and location of the building, it is not considered that some of the other elements of this assessment are relevant or useful to the assessment of the application, as discussed below.

6.3.2 The application states that a motel accommodating up to six people is classed as a residential activity and can thus be undertaken as a permitted activity in residential zones. This is based on the current definition of residential activities in the District Plan which reads; “… the use or occupation of land and buildings by people for the purpose of living accommodation, where the occupiers voluntarily intend to live at the site for a period of one month or more, and includes accessory buildings and leisure activities directly associated with the residential activity. It also means the occupation of land or buildings for the purpose of living accommodation on a temporary basis (i.e. up to one month) where the accommodation is ancillary to the predominant use or activity on the site, and involves up to six people only, such as bed and breakfast, farmstay or homestay accommodation. For the purposes of this definition, residential activity therefore includes rest homes (Geriatric Care facilities), guesthouses, apartments, emergency and refuge accommodation, domestic pastimes and activities associated with residential accommodation. The definition of residential activity therefore does not include motels or hotels; backpackers, bed and breakfast, farmstay or homestay accommodation, for more than six people; which are commercial activities”.

13

The permitted baseline has thus been applied by the applicant to discount the effects of a motel catering for up to six people, and instead assesses only the effects of the additional six-person capacity proposed.

6.3.3 This interpretation and application of the “residential activity” definition to discount the effects of a motel operating for up to six people, as put forward by the applicant, is not accepted. It is considered that the intent of this definition is to allow for visitor accommodation for up to six people that is contained within a residential unit on a site, to be undertaken as a permitted activity, for example a farmstay or bed and breakfast. Conversely, visitor accommodation provided in an entirely separate facility would not be considered a residential activity and therefore cannot be undertaken as a permitted activity.

The Whangarei District Council practice note on the definition of ‘residential activity” which is included in attachment 8 of this report supports this later interpretation. The practice note provides clarification as to the types of visitor accommodation that can be classed as a residential activity. This includes buildings and groups of buildings, or rooms and groups of rooms that are intended to be used in conjunction with each other as a single independent unit. Motels, hotels and backpackers which are classed as “temporary accommodation” are excluded from this and are instead defined as commercial activities.

6.3.4 The application also applies the permitted baseline in relation to traffic movements, stating that the proposal will generate less than 30 traffic movements in a 24 hour period, in accordance with the permitted standard for commercial activities in residential zones. However, in relation to this it is not considered that the application provides adequate information to make an accurate determination on the expected number of traffic movements for the motel. This is discussed in more detail in section 6.5 of this report.

6.3.5 The application states that the six motel units fall within the permitted residential development density permitted for the site, being a 2.42ha site in the Living 3 environment. However, as discussed in section 6.2.2 of this report, the Living 3 Environment requires 2000m2 of site area to be directly associated with each residential unit. The intensification of residential development introduced by the application would not therefore be permitted in the Living 3 Environment. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is for a commercial activity rather than residential activity, and the application of the permitted baseline for residential units is not therefore considered relevant or useful to the assessment at hand.

6.3.6 The following assessment will cover the effects of those elements of the proposal that do not

meet the relevant permitted District Plan standards.

6.4 Character and amenity effects

6.4.1 “Amenity values” is defined in section 2 of the Act as “…those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to peoples’ appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and recreational attributes.” Based on this, the amenity values of an area can be described as those special attributes, relating particularly to natural and physical characteristics, that set an area or neighbourhood apart.

6.4.2 The District Plan then identifies the characteristics that would generally be found in the Living Environment stating it would most likely have ‘high levels of amenity as a result of a combination of some or all of the following characteristics:

• Low intensity development;

• Presence of trees and private gardens;

• Landscaped frontages and street setbacks;

• Off-street parking;

• High degree of privacy;

• Daylight and sunlight access;

• A high proportion of private and public open space;

• Low levels of noise, visual pollution, odour and nuisances;

14

• Safe environment for children, cyclists and pedestrians;

• Low levels of vehicular traffic;

• Feeling of community;

• Non-residential support activities, such as business and community activities, of an appropriate scale.

6.4.3 The table below provides an assessment of the proposal against these amenity characteristics on the closest neighbouring site, being 2104 Whangarei Heads Road;

Low intensity development;

The District Plan recognises that Living Environments are characterised by low intensity development which contributes to the characteristic amenity values of the zone. Although the permitted baseline would allow for an additional 10- 11 units to be established on the subject site, in a typical residential scenario these would be dispersed, rather than concentrated to one location. The proposal thus represents an intensification of development that is not anticipated for the Environment, potentially resulting in a concentration of human activity and associated effects that would not otherwise occur. It is considered that this intensification of residential activity in the proposed location will generate adverse amenity effects on the neighbouring property at 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

Adverse effects may include nuisance effects from the noise of human activity which may be more frequent than would be expected with a standard residential unit in this locality. This is likely to disturb the neighbours enjoyment of the residential environment. Adverse effects to privacy and “feelings of community” may also be experienced as discussed later in this report. It is considered that these adverse effects will be exacerbated by the orientation of the motel building directly towards this neighbouring site.

Presence of trees and private gardens

No landscaping has been proposed as part of the development, and the motel units do not have private gardens or individual areas of land associated with each. In this sense, the physical and visual amenity values of the unit will differ from that of a typical residential unit in the Living 3 Environment. In a typical residential scenario, each unit would have 2000m2 of land area directly associated with each which would include a curtilage and private gardens around each residential unit, thus contributing to high visual amenity, privacy and open space character for each. The present proposal lacks these characteristics that would typically be expected in the Living 3 Environment, and instead intensifies residential development into one locality on the site. It is thus considered that adverse effects will be generated to the character and amenity values of the locality as experienced by the residents of the closest neighbouring site, being 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

Landscaped frontages and street setbacks;

The proposal complies with all building setbacks but does not include landscaped frontages as required for commercial activities in residential zones. Adverse effects of this can be mitigated through the inclusion of landscaped northern and western frontages as part of the development, should consent be granted.

Off-street parking Off street parking will be provided for the development in accordance with the Operative District Plan standards.

15

High degree of privacy; The proposed motel building is a double storey construction with decks orientated towards the neighbouring property at 2104 Whangarei Heads Road, and thus there is a potential for adverse effects to be generated on the privacy of this neighbouring site.

In relation to privacy, the applicant has provided an assessment in a letter dated 10th of July 2018, (included in attachment 6 to this report) which explains that, based on a survey of the site, and the floor level of the neighbour’s house, and considering the motel units will be located 14m from the neighbouring boundary, no views of the proposed building will be visible from the neighbour’s house.

While it is acknowledged that views of the motel to and from the neighbouring site may be minimal, it is still considered that adverse privacy effects may be generated due to people talking and convening around the motel units including on the decks, as well the presence of the motel car park and human activity associated within this, within 14m of the neighbouring site boundary.

It is noted that the outdoor living space for the house at 2104 Whangarei Heads Road is located adjacent to the boundary between the two sites, and the privacy of the occupants of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road is considered likely to be compromised when using this outdoor space.

Daylight and sunlight access

The proposed building complies with all bulk and location standards for the Living 3 Environment and it is thus considered that good access to daylight and sunlight will be afforded for both the subject site and neighbouring sites.

A high proportion of private and public open space;

The application is for a land use consent and does not impact the amount of public or private open space available in the locality.

Low levels of noise, visual pollution, odour and nuisances

The application states that noise generated from the activity will be within the permitted standards for the Living 3 Environment, specifically being below 55dBLAeq between 7:00am and 10:00pm, and 45dBLAeq between 10:00pm and 7:00am when measured at the site boundaries, however no noise assessment has been provided with the application.

When operating at full capacity, it is considered that there is potential for noise from the units to exceed the permitted level for the Environment at the boundary of 2014 Whangarei Heads Road. This is in light of the design and orientation of the motel units, which has upper storey decks facing towards this neighbouring property, the intensification of human activity in and around the motel units, and the nature of the units as holiday accommodation which suggests a different type of behaviour from guests than would be expected with a typical residential unit. The applicant has drafted a management plan which requires no noise from the motel guests after 10:00pm and before 7:00am, however the successful practical implementation of this condition of the management plan is uncertain as it relies on the motel managers being aware of, and able to control noisy guests.

It is therefore considered that further information is therefore required regarding potential noise from the motel before a determination of likely noise level can made.

Additionally, it is considered that adverse nuisance effects may be generated by the frequent occurrence of noise from vehicles and human activities that would be more common than would be expected

16

with a typical residential activity, even in the instance that these noise levels are within the permitted level for the Environment.

In relation to other sites in the receiving locality adverse noise effects on other sites in the receiving locality are considered to be avoided as the motel units will be well separated from all other neighbouring sites.

In relation to pollution and odour effects, it is considered that adverse effects will be avoided.

Low levels of vehicular traffic.

An assessment of effects relating to traffic is provided in section 6.3.5 of this report below.

Feeling of community;

As stated in the District Plan, amenity values are the characteristics that influence and enhance people's appreciation of a particular area. These values are derived from the pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational attributes of an area. Amenity values can be affected by noise, dust, smoke, smell, glare, light spill, traffic, appearance, intensity and shading. Amenity considerations also include intangible aspects. An example of intangible amenity aspects given in the District Plan includes “feeling of community”. The proposal is considered likely to generate adverse amenity effects based on the intangible effect of having a commercial activity in a residential environment. In relation to this, it is considered the neighbours (residents of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road) appreciation of the residential nature of the environment and the “feeling of community” that would typically be expected in the residential environment, will be compromised by the operation of the holiday apartments in relatively close proximity to this site. For example, in a typical residential environment, owners of residential sites would expect to know who their neighbours are, however in this situation, the owners of number 2014 will not know who is residing in the apartments at number 2108, and this may lead to a break down in the “feelings of community” that would be expected.

Non-residential support activities, such as business and community activities, of an appropriate scale.

The District Plan does not provide a definition of non- residential support activities; however it is considered that such activities would include businesses and community activities that are used by residents of an area. Examples may include medical centres and convenience stores. It is not considered that a motel would be a non-residential support activity as it would be used by visitors to an area rather than the residents of the area themselves. It is not therefore considered that the proposed motel will add to the overall residential character anticipated for the Living 3 Environment.

6.4.4 Character and amenity effects on other sites in the wider environment

6.4.4.1 In relation to other properties in the wider environment, adverse character and amenity effects are considered to be avoided. The motel building is proposed to be located in the north- western corner of the subject site, and is well separated from the road and other neighbouring properties. As discussed previously, the building has been designed in a residential style with a low reflectance value finish and complies with all relevant bulk and location requirements. Additionally, noise and light pollution levels from the activity are anticipated to be within the permitted District Plan standards. The motel activity is likely to attract a higher level of traffic than would be expected with the typical residential use of the site, however Whangarei Heads Road will be able to absorb the traffic volume as it is a well- established collector road, and overall, adverse effects on the safe and efficient functioning of the road network will be less than minor.

17

6.5 Traffic and parking effects

6.5.1 Section 5.4 of the application states that traffic movements from the motel will be within the permitted standard of the District Plan, specifically being less than 30 in a 24 hour period. The application estimates that total traffic movements will be made up of four movements per unit per day, and 6 additional movements for cleaners, deliveries and other visitors. Following a request for further information regarding traffic effects, additional information was provided by the agent for the application on the 12th of February 2018 which shows that motel units generate 3 traffic movements on average in a 24 hour period. The applicant concluded that, based on this information, and allowing for 6 additional contingency trips per day for cleaners and deliveries, the motel activity will generate less than 30 traffic movements in a 24 hour period. A copy of the information provided in relation to traffic movements is included in attachment 3 of this report.

6.5.2 The information provided in relation to traffic movements is not considered to be sufficiently detailed to make an accurate determination on the expected number of traffic movements for the motel for a number of reasons. Firstly, the data provided on average vehicle movements from motel units is taken from a 2011 NZTA report and is thus potentially out of date. Secondly, the information provided is not specific to the proposal and provides no analysis of typical guest behaviour at accommodation facilities in the Whangarei Heads area, and thirdly, the NZTA report does not differentiate between motels that are used for transient accommodation and motels that are used for destination accommodation, the uses of which are assumed to be different in some aspects.

6.5.3 Due to the location of the subject site which is close to a number of natural amenities including McLeod’s Bay, Mt Manaia and Ocean Beach, and due to it being relatively inaccessible from major transport routes (i.e. state highways), the units are more likely to be used for holiday/ destination accommodation rather than transient accommodation. Where with transient accommodation, a guest may be expected to arrive, sleep overnight and leave the following day, with holiday accommodation guests may be more likely to come and go during the day to enjoy the local amenities and access other commercial facilities they may need i.e. shops. It is noted that McLeod’s Bay is not serviced well for shops and other commercial facilities, and although there is a café and restaurant within walking distance, visitors will have to travel to nearby Parua Bay or Whangarei township for most of the commercial facilities they require. Presently, it is not considered that the application provides adequate information on the anticipated activity of guests, and the corresponding traffic movements, to conclude that traffic movements will be within the permitted threshold of 30 movements in a 24 hour period. This is particularly relevant for times when the units are operating at full capacity.

6.5.4 In the scenario that traffic movements exceed the permitted standard of 30 in a 24 hour period, it is likely that adverse effects will be generated on the occupants of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road. This is because the access way and carpark for the units is located to the west of the units, directly adjacent to the boundary between these two lots. The residents of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road are therefore likely to experience effects associated with traffic movements that are over and above those anticipated by the Plan, and their enjoyment of the residential nature of the environment is therefore likely to be disturbed. Such effects may nuisance effects from the frequent noise of cars travelling up and down the access way and from car doors slamming. It is noted that although noise levels from cars may be within permitted threshold for the Living 3 Environment, they are likely to be more frequent than would otherwise be expected in the environment.

6.5.5 The permitted baseline assessment included in the application acknowledged that traffic movements associated with residential activities on the site are a permitted activity, with potential for an additional 10- 11 residential units to be established based on the net site area. Should the site be developed to its highest residential potential, total traffic movements on and off the site may exceed 30 per day. However, as discussed previously, in this scenario effects are likely to be dispersed across the site, with a potential for several different access points, and different parking localities across the site. The current application proposes to concentrate traffic to one particular locality on the site, thus concentrating associated effects. Therefore, although the permitted baseline does provide some context as to the effects that could be expected with the full development of the subject site, it cannot be used to fully discount the traffic effects of the proposal at hand.

18

6.5.6 In light of the above, it considered that a more robust assessment of traffic effects is required to support the application.

6.5.7 The applicant has provided a plan demonstrating that parking will be provided in accordance with the parking standards in appendix. Adverse effects of the proposal in relation to parking are thus considered acceptable.

6.6 Infrastructure and servicing effects

6.6.1 Councils Senior Engineering Officer Vladimir Rozov has reviewed the application and his full report is included in attachment 5 of this. The points raised in his report are summarised below;

6.6.2 Hazards

The site has a medium instability hazard designation identified on Whangarei District Council’s Geographic Information Systems maps. It is expected that medium instability hazard can be properly addressed for proposed motel building by suitably experienced Chartered Professional Engineer at the time of applying for a Building Consent.

6.6.3 Earthworks

Minimal earthworks are proposed, and will be associated with the construction of proposed building, services and associated access and car parking.

6.6.4 Roading

It is considered that any potential effects on the existing roading network will be less than minor in this instance. Whangarei Heads Road is classified as a collector road and has a sealed surface in the area of the proposed development. The agent has provided information regarding traffic movements in their letter dated 12th February 2018, and refer to an NZ Transport Agency research report titled ‘Trips and parking related to land use November 2011’. Table 8.10 of this document predicts 3 vehicle movements per day per motel unit and the application concludes that traffic movements will be within the permitted threshold.

6.6.5 Vehicle entrance/access ways

Appropriate vehicle entrance crossings will be required to be constructed in accordance with Sheet 18 of WDC EES, on the southern side of Whangarei Heads Road, in the area located adjacent to the western boundary of the site, prior to operation of proposed apartments building. The agent for the application confirmed in a letter dated 10th of July 2018, that the vehicle sight lines from the property can comply with sheet 4 of the WDC Environmental Engineering Standards for collector roads.

6.6.6 On-site parking & manoeuvring

The parking arrangement for the units are shown on the plan provided by Reyburn and Bryant titled vehicle tracking & parking plan, ref: P13233 revision A, dated December 2017. It is recommended that the six parking spaces and associated manoeuvring areas as shown on Architectural Services Northland Ltd amended concept plan ref: 1757, sheet 1 dated 3 July 2018 will be constructed with sealed and marked surface to reduce potential noise and dust problems

6.6.7 Sewer/ Waste Water

There is no change proposed to the existing wastewater disposal arrangements associated with two existing dwellings located onsite. The proposed motel units building will be connected to the 150mm diameter Whangarei District Council sewer reticulation line located adjacent Whangarei Heads Road; therefore, the application complies with requirements of Council’s EES.

6.6.8 Water

There will be no change to the existing water supply arrangements associated with two existing dwellings located onsite. The proposed motel units building will be connected to the 160mm Whangarei District Council water reticulation line located adjacent Whangarei Heads Road; therefore, the application complies with requirements of Council’s EES.

19

6.7 Archaeological effects There are identified archaeological features in the vicinity of the site, including close to the northern and southern boundaries as shown in Figure 4.0. The application does not include any information relating to these, however they are identified on Whangarei District Council GIS maps as Maori middens and burial sites. No investigation has been carried out into the potential presence of archaeological features within the site itself as part of the application. In relation to this matter, the application was sent to representatives at the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for comment on the 13th of March 2018.

It was recommended by a representative from Heritage New Zealand that an archaeological assessment of the site be undertaken. This was passed on to the applicant, who expressed the view that an archaeological assessment is unnecessary as archaeological features in the area have been extensively studied in the past and there are no features have yet been identified on the subject site. Furthermore, the closest identified archaeological features are location over 100m from the proposed development location. The correspondence in relation to this matter is included in attachment 9 of this report. Considering the nature of the application which is for built development in one specific location on the site, and in light of the argument the agent out forward, it is considered that an archaeological assessment of the development location is not strictly necessary in this instance, and accidental discovery protocol conditions can be applied to the consent (if granted), to address any avoid adverse effects on any archaeological features that may be uncovered during site works.

6.8 Management Plan

6.8.1 At the request of Council, the applicant has prepared a draft management plan (included in attachment 9 of this report) which covers the management of alcohol consumption, noise, cleaners, and the role of the managers including the power of managers to evict. Whilst this will set out some expected behaviours from guests, including complete quiet between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am, the success of its practical implementation is uncertain as it relies on the managers being aware of undesirable behaviour from guest, and being to reasonably control the behaviour of guests. Additionally, the management plan is unable to control effects relating to residential amenity, privacy or nuisance. It is not therefore considered that the management plan, as drafted, will adequately mitigate the actual and potential adverse effects identified.

6.8.2 Further to the above, while a management plan can be a useful technique to back up how the extent of the proposed activity will be adhered to on a day to day basis, it is not a tool that can be used to overcome the need to provide a detailed suite of information and an assessment of effects. In the case of this application, it is not considered that sufficient detail has been provided in relation to a number of matters to ensure that the management plan will be effective in controlling potential effects.

6.9 Submissions

6.9.1 The submission on the application by Aaron Taylor and Maia Russell indicated they were opposing the application for the following reasons;

a. Amenity and privacy effects b. Traffic effects c. Noise effects d. Lighting effects e. Inadequate an inaccurate provision of information in the application f. Inconsistency with the purpose and principals of the RMA 1991, in particular the

application does not avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment and does not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

6.9.2 Regarding point (a), amenity and privacy effect, these matters have been addressed in section 6.4 of this report. In summary, it is concluded that the proposal will generate minor adverse effects on the submitters property in relation to character and amenity values in the Living 3 Environment due to the intensification of residential activity in one locality on the subject site, and due to the potential breakdown of privacy and “feelings of community” that would typically be expected in this environment.

6.9.3 Regarding point (b), traffic effects have been addressed in section 6.5 of this report. In summary, it is concluded that insufficient information has been provided in the application to accurately

20

determine the volume of traffic that will be generated by the activity. If traffic movements from activity the exceed the permitted volume of 30 in a 24 hour period, there is a potential for adverse effects to be generated, with nuisance effects likely to be generated due to frequent traffic movements.

In relation to traffic safety effects, this is addressed in section in relation to traffic nuisance, with traffic safety and roading effects, these have been assessed by a Council Senior Engineering Officer and are considered less than minor, as addressed in section 6.6 of this report.

6.9.4 Regarding point (c), noise effects, this has been addressed in section 6.3 of this report, with traffic noise specifically being addressed in section 6.5.3. In summary, it is considered that a more detailed assessment of noise effects is required before determination can be made as to compliance or otherwise with the District Plan noise standards.

6.9.5 Regarding point (d), lighting effects the application does not provide any information specifically about lighting, however considering the 14m distance between the proposed building and the closest neighbouring site, light pollution is not expected to be any more intense than what would be expected with typical residential use of the site. If the application were to be granted consent, there is opportunity to impose conditions disallowing flood lighting and lighting along the access way to the motel to avoid adverse effect on 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

6.9.6 Regarding point (e), in carrying out an assessment of actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal on the environment, those matters pertaining to the purpose and principals of the RMA 1991 are considered to have been addressed. In summary, it is considered that adverse effects of the proposal relating to visual character, lighting, infrastructure and serving and traffic and road safety are avoided, whilst adverse effects are likely to be generated in relation to the intensity of development and the degradation of residential character and amenity. Adverse effects may also be generated in relation to noise and traffic nuisance.

6.9.7 The objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and Place Change 85C that are relevant to the points raise by the submitters are addressed in section 7 of this report.

6.10 Conclusion of Effects Assessment

6.10.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal will generate adverse effects on the residential amenity of the adjacent property to the north- west, being 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

6.10.2 The proposal gives rise to an intensification of residential development and associated effects in one particular locality on the site, that would not occur with typical residential development of the site. This is likely to generate nuisance effects such as frequent noise from human activity, which will adversely affect the neighbours enjoyment of the residential environment. These effects are likely to be exacerbated by the orientation of the motel towards the effected neighbouring site.

6.10.3 The proposed commercial use of the Living 3 Environment zoned site, and location of the commercial activity in relatively close proximity to a neighbouring Living 3 zoned site, is likely to result in a breakdown of the residential amenity characteristics that would typically be associated with a residential zone. “Feelings of community” may be broken down by the motel having transient rather than permanent inhabitants.

6.10.4 Although views of the motel to and from the neighbouring site will be minimal, the orientation of the building and location of the carpark adjacent to the boundary with 2104 Whangarei Heads Road is likely to adversely affect the privacy of this site due to people convening and talking around the motel units including on the decks, as well as due to the human activity occurring within the carpark.

6.10.5 The application does not provide adequate information to determine the likely level of noise that will be generated by the activity when measured at the boundary of the 2014 Whangarei Heads Road. This is in consideration of the design and orientation of the motel building, the intensification of human activity in and around the motel units, and the nature of the units as holiday accommodation which suggests a different type of behaviour from guests than would be expected with a typical residential unit. Further assessment as to expected noise levels is therefore required before a determination on noise effects can be made.

6.10.7 The application does not provide adequate information to determine the anticipated number of traffic movements that will be generated by the motel in a 24 hour period, particularly when the

21

motel is operating at full capacity. The information provided is not recent and is not specific to the site, area or development proposed. If traffic movements do exceed the District Plans permitted threshold of 30 movements in a 24 hour period, it is likely that adverse nuisance effects will be generated on 2104 Whangarei Heads Road, due to the frequent noise of vehicle movements.

6.10.8 The permitted baseline can be applied to the assessment to discount the effects of the physical bulk and location of the motel building as it is in keeping with the relevant bulk and location standards. It is not however considered that the applicants permitted baseline assessment relating to the permitted use of the site for visitor accommodation for up to six people can be applied as motels are excluded from the District Plan definition of residential activity. Furthermore, it is not considered that the applicants permitted baseline assessment relating to the permitted density of residential development on the site is applicable as the proposal is for a commercial activity rather than a residential activity.

6.10.9 The management plan put forward put the applicant is not considered sufficiently comprehensive to adequately mitigate actual and potential adverse effects identified.

6.10.10 In relation to other sites in the localised and wider locality, the proposal is not considered to generate adverse effects over and above those anticipated by the District Plan. The proposed motel building will be designed in a residential style, in keeping with the relevant bulk and location standards of the District Plan. The building will be setback over 4.5m from the road and will be well separated from other surrounding sites. Traffic movements may exceed the permitted standard of 30 in a 24 hour period, however as Whangarei Heads Road is a well-established collector road, it is not likely that this will impact the safe and efficient functioning of the local road network.

6.10.11 The proposal is acceptable from an engineering and serving perspective. The proposal can be adequately serviced for wastewater and stormwater drainage, water supply and network utility services. Additionally, the carparking area will be constructed to WDC Environmental Engineering Standards, with parking spaces provided in accordance with appendix 6 of the District Plan. Adverse effects in relation to servicing will thus be less than minor.

6.10.12 The site is located close to a number of identified archaeological features, identified as Maori Pa sites and Burial sites. No specific investigation has been undertaken into archaeological features within the site itself. It is considered that accidental discovery protocol conditions should be applied to the consent if granted to address features that may be uncovered during site works.

7 Relevant Policy Statements, Plans or Proposed Plans (s104 (1)(b)) 7.1 Statutory Consideration

7.1.1 Section 104 of the Act sets out those matters that, subject to Part 2, a consent authority must have regard to when considering an application for resource consent. These matters include any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity, any relevant provisions of a Plan or Proposed Plan, and any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

7.1.2 Pursuant to Section 104B of the Act, after considering an application for resource consent, a consent authority may grant or refuse the application, and if it grants the application, may impose conditions under Section 108 of the Act.

7.1.3 The following sections assess the proposal against the relevant objectives and policies of the relevant plans for the subject site. These being:

• Northland Regional Policy Statement• Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland• Operative Whangarei District Plan• Proposed Rural Plan Change (discussed later in this report)

7.2 Operative Regional Policy Statement for Northland (RPS)

7.2.1 The current Northland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was declared operative on the 9th May 2016 and covers the management of natural and physical resources across the Northland region. The provisions within the RPS give guidance at a higher planning level in terms of the significant

22

regional issues. As such it does not contain specific rules that trigger the requirement for consent but rather give guidance to consent applications on a regional level.

7.2.2 Having read through the relevant objectives and policies contained within this document it is considered that this application is generally in accordance with these directives and will not raise any issues of regional significance.

7.3 Operative Whangarei District Plan

7.3.1 The relevant objectives and policies in the Operative Whangarei District Plan (the District Plan) for the proposed development are located in Chapter 5 – Amenity Values, Chapter 6 – Built Form and Development, Chapter 8 – Subdivision and Development and Chapter 22 – Road Transport, a copy of these chapters is included in attachment 8 to this report. The following objectives and policies of the District Plan are considered to be relevant in the consideration of this application:

7.4 The following table assesses the proposed subdivision against the relevant objectives and policies within these Chapters:

Table 2 – Assessment of Relevant Objectives and Policies within the District Plan

Chapter 5 – Amenity Values

Objective Comment

5.3.1 The characteristic amenity values of each Environment are maintained and, where appropriate enhanced.

The objectives and policies of Chapter 5 focus on maintaining the characteristic amenity values of each locality and ensuring subdivision and development does not generate adverse effects that are incompatible with existing and identified future amenity values in the surrounding environment.

In relation to the neighbouring sites at 2104 Whangarei Heads Road, the proposal as presented and assessed is found to be inconsistent with objective 5.3.1 and 5.3.5. This is due to the intensification of residential development in one locality on the site in proximity to the boundary of 2014 Whangarei Heads Road, and the loss of privacy and breakdown of ‘feelings of community” that is likely to be experienced by the inhabitants of this neighbouring site. It is considered that these adverse effects are exacerbated by the orientation of the motel building towards the neighbouring site.

In terms of the physical characteristics of the motel building, these are in line with the amenity values for the zone as the building complies with the Living 3 Environment bulk and location standards. Adverse effects in relation to the matters highlighted in policy 5.4.1 are thus avoided. Overall, the amenity values of the wider Living 3 Environment are not considered to be compromised by the proposal as previously discussed.

In regards to policy 5.4.7, although views of the motel to and from 2104 Whangarei Heads Road will be minimal, and thus outlook will not be disrupted, it considered that there is still potential for adverse privacy effects to be

5.3.5 The actual or potential effects of subdivision use and development is appropriately controlled and those activities located and designed, are to be compatible with existing and identified future patterns of development and levels of amenity in the surrounding environment.

Policy

5.4.1 Effects on the Local Environment

To ensure that activities do not produce, beyond the boundaries of the site, adverse effects that are not compatible with the amenity values characteristic of the surrounding and/or adjacent environment unless, such effects are authorised by a district plan, a designation, a resource consent or otherwise. The following effects should be given particular consideration in this respect:

• Noise and effects;

• Shading;

• Glare;

• Light spill;

• Dust;

23

• Smoke;

• Odour;

• Vibration;

• Spray drift;

• Visual amenity.

generated on this neighbouring site due to people convening and talking around the motel units including on the decks, and human activity in the car park adjacent to the north- western boundary. Furthermore, there is potential for residential noise standards to be exceeded by the intensification of human activity within this locality on the site. It is noted that the outdoor living space for the neighbouring house is also adjacent to this boundary, and the neighbours enjoyment of this space is likely to be compromised. No mitigation has been proposed to lessen these effects.

Those matters raised in policy 5.4.12 are addressed later in section 7 of this report.

On balance, the proposal is found to be not supportive of the objectives and policies of Chapter 5.

5.4.3 Activities in Living Environments.

To ensure activities in Living Environments do not have adverse effects that are significantly greater than those associated with residential activities, whilst acknowledging that adverse effects of activities from outside the living Environments, e.g. the Airport, may not be avoidable altogether and may affect amenity values.

5.4.7 Intensity and Design of Subdivision and Development

To ensure that subdivision and development do not unduly compromise the outlook and privacy of adjoining properties, and should be compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding environment. Particular regard should be given to:

• The layout and intensity ofsubdivision.

• The location, design and sitingof buildings and structuresexcept, where such buildingsand structures provide aspecific service for thesurrounding environment. In thelatter case, any building orstructure shall be designed, laidout and located, so as to avoid,remedy or mitigate any adverseeffects on the environment.

5.4.12 Traffic

To encourage vehicle movements and parking demand, where it does not adversely affect the amenity values of the particular environment in which it is located, having regard to the characteristics of that environment and adjacent environments, and the range of activities for which it makes provision for.

24

Chapter 6 – Built Form and Development

Objective Comment

6.3.2 Subdivision and development that ensures consolidated development in appropriate locations and avoids sprawling or sporadic subdivision and ribbon development patterns in the coastal and rural environment.

The intention of objective 6.3.2 is to ensure subdivision and development is not sprawling, sporadic or form of ribbon development. As the application site is located within a relatively well established residential environment, it is not considered to be sprawling or sporadic development and the proposal is thus consistent with this objective.

However, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with objective 6.3.12 in that it gives rise to the presence of incompatible land use activities in a residential zone. As previously discussed, the operation of the motel is likely to result in a breakdown of the residential amenity values experienced by the residents of 2104 Whangarei Heads Road.

6.3.12 Avoid conflict between incompatible land use activities as a result of subdivision and urban development.

Policy Comment

6.4.2 Consolidated Development

To consolidate urban development by:

i. Further develop within existingbuilt up areas, so as to avoidsporadic or sprawlingsubdivision and ribbondevelopment patterns,particularly in rural areas andalong the coast.

ii. Directing rural lifestyle and rural-residential development toappropriate locations adjacentto existing settlements, ratherthan allowing sporadicdevelopment throughout ruraland coastal areas.

In relation to policy 6.4.2, as discussed above, the proposal is not considered to be an example of sprawling or sporadic development, as it is located in a relatively well established residential area.

6.4.7 Policies – Business Activity

i. To encourage consolidation anddevelopment of the centralbusiness district (CBD).

ii. To avoid sporadic commercialdevelopment.

iii. To promote agglomeration andclustering of businesses andindustry.

iv. To recognize and provide for thecontinued operation andappropriate further developmentof existing and commercial andindustrial activities.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is considered to be an example of sporadic commercial development. The site is not located in a commercial area, and other surrounding sites are residential in nature. It is acknowledged that there is a café within walking distance of the site, however there is no clear linkage between the café and the proposed motel. The proposal is therefore considered to be inconsistent with policy 6.4.7.

25

Chapter 8 – Subdivision and Development

Objective Comment

8.3.1 Subdivision and development that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

In accordance with objective 8.3.1, adverse effects of the proposal on the wider environment are considered to be avoided, with effects isolated to the immediate receiving environment as previously discussed. The proposal is not considered to give rise to the unsustainable use of resources.

8.3.2 Subdivision and development that does not detract from the character of the locality and avoids conflicts between incompatible land use activities.

As previously discussed, the proposal is considered to give rise to incompatible land use activities between the proposed commercial operation and the adjacent residential site at 2104 Whangarei Heads Road. The proposal is thus considered to be inconsistent with objective 8.3.2 in relation to this site.

8.3.7 Subdivision and development that provides for comprehensive development of land with a range of allotment sizes and is appropriate to the character of the Environment in which it is located.

Policy Comment

8.4.3 Density of Development

To ensure that subdivision and development results in a pattern and density of land use which reflects flexibility in allotment size, and is of a density appropriate to the locality.

Residential density is not considered to be relevant to the assessment of this proposal as the proposal is for a commercial development rather than a residential development.

Notwithstanding this, the proposal introduces an intensification of human activity to one locality on the site that would not be expected with the typical residential development of the site. This intensification of development is not considered to be appropriate for the locality.

8.4.4 Cumulative Effects

To ensure that the cumulative effects of on-going subdivision and development do not compromise the objectives and policies of this Plan, in particular those objectives and policies relating to reducing conflicts between incompatible land use activities, the consolidated and orderly development of land and the density of development.

Cumulative effects are those effects that arise from development leading to incremental changes to the character and amenity values over time of an area over time.

In this case, the proposal is not considered to give rise to adverse cumulative effects as, although there are several commercial operations in the area, the environment has not generally been subject to commercial development over time. Should consent be granted for the application, the area will remain predominantly residential in nature.

8.4.7 Design and Location

To ensure subdivision and development is designed and located so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on, and where appropriate, enhance:

• Amenity values and sense of place;

As previously discussed, the proposal is not considered to have been designed and located to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects to the residential amenity experienced by 2104 Whangarei Heads Road, rather it is considered that the orientation and positioning of the motel building, as presented and assessed to date, will direct adverse effects onto this property. Furthermore, no mitigation has been offered by way of boundary planting and screening. Thus the proposal is found to

26

• Archaeological, cultural (including tangata whenua) and heritage features;

• Sites of Significance to Maori; • Heritage areas of significance to

Maori;

be inconsistent with this aspect of objective 8.4.7.

In relation to effects on sites of significance to Maori, it is considered that potential adverse effects on any Maori archaeological features that are uncovered during site works can be avoided through the imposition of accidental discovery protocol condition on the consent if granted.

8.4.12 Services and Infrastructure

To ensure that all subdivision and development is capable of being provided, by the subdivider or developer, with adequate services and infrastructure having regard to Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 (except where the subdivision or development is for specific protection purposes), including: • Vehicle access, including

emergency service vehicle access;

• Water supply, (including for firefighting purposes), storm water and sewage disposal;

• Energy and telecommunication connections;

• Useable open space in urban areas;

• During the design and construction of the subdivision, measures to reduce storm water runoff.

The proposal has been assessed by Councils Senior Environmental Engineer who has not identified any constraints in terms of the onsite servicing arrangements. Suitable conditions of consent have been recommended pursuant to Sections 108 and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and can be imposed, should consent be granted to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 and the relevant standards of utility providers.

Chapter 22- Road Transport

Objective Comment

22.3.1 Establish and maintain a safe and efficient road transport network.

22.3.3 Protect the road transport network from the adverse effects of adjacent land use, development or subdivision.

As discussed previously, although the proposal will generate an increase in traffic movements in the locality, due to Whangarei Heads Road being a well-established collector road, it is not expected that this will compromise the safe and efficient functioning of the local road network.

Policy Comment

22.4.5 Location of Activities

To locate activities and developments in a manner that makes best use of the existing and proposed road transport

Vehicle sight lines from the proposed vehicle crossing along Whangarei Heads Road from the development have been assessed as compliant with the WDC Environmental Engineering Standards. The proposal is thus considered to align with this policy.

27

infrastructure, and minimises adverse effects on traffic flows.

22.4.6 Pedestrian Safety

To ensure that cyclists and pedestrians, including vulnerable groups, such as the young, the elderly and the disabled, are safe from vehicles and other road traffic.

Again, as proposed vehicle crossing location achieves compliant sight lines, and as established pedestrian footpaths are available outside the site, the proposal is considered to align with this policy.

22.4.7 Parking and Manoeuvring

To provide adequate parking, turning and manoeuvring space on every site, other than sites in the areas shown in Figures 6A.1 and 6A.2 to Appendix 6, to accommodate traffic generated by the activity, and to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the transport network.

The car parking area for the motel will be developed in accordance with WDC Environmental Engineering Standards, with parking provided at a rate consistent with the requirements of appendix 6 of the District Plan. The proposal is thus considered to align with this policy.

7.4.3 Conclusion of objectives and policies assessment

7.4.3.1 While the proposal is found to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan in term of built form, visual amenity, infrastructure and servicing and road transport, there are a number of objectives and policies for which the District Plan intent is not achieved, as summarised below;

• Chapter 5- Amenity Values: The proposal is found to be inconsistent with the objectives and policies aimed at maintaining the character and amenity values of each environment, specifically in relation to the neighbouring site at 2104 Whangarei Heads Road. The intensification of development in the locality and commercial nature of the proposal is likely to diminish the residential amenity that would typically be expected in the locality. Adverse effects are considered to be exacerbated due to the orientation of the building directly towards the neighbouring site and location of the car park adjacent to the boundary with is site.

• Chapter 6- Built Development: In relation to its built form, the proposal is not considered to be sprawling or sporadic, however it is considered to be sporadic in relation to its commercial nature and location in a residential zone rather than an established commercial area. The proposal is also considered to give rise to incompatible land uses in the Living 3 Environment, and is thus inconsistent with some of the objectives and policies of chapter 6.

• Chapter 8- The proposal is not considered to have been designed to avoid, remedy or mitigated adverse effects on 2104 Whangarei Heads Road as the building and carpark is orientated towards this site and no landscaping or screening has been proposed. It is thus considered to detract from the residential amenity of this site. The proposal is thus found to be inconsistent with the intent of the relevant objectives and policies of chapter 8 in relation to 2014 Whangarei Heads Road. Adverse effects on other sites in localise and wider area are considered to be avoided as the motel building will be well separated from them. The proposal meets the intent of the objectives and policies of chapter 8 in relation to other sites in the environment.

7.4.3.2 On balance, it is concluded that the proposed development is not consistent with the overarching intent of the aforementioned relevant objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan

8 Other Matters 8.1 Rural Plan Change

8.1.2 The Rural Plan Changes have been instigated by the Whangarei District Council as part of a suite of plan changes addressing rural land and development, landscapes, and the coastal environment. One of the underlying drivers for the preparation of these plan changes is the need

28

to be consistent with the operative RPS provisions, noting that it became operative in May 2016. A Decision has been issued by the WDC on the Plan Changes, and a number of appeals have since been lodged with the Environment Court.

8.1.3 Under the Rural Plan Changes, the subject site is identified as having an underlying proposed zoning of Rural Village Residential Environment. The Mcleods Bay Rural Village is described in RVE 1.1 as follows; McLeod Bay and Reotahi are situated on the inner Whangarei Harbour. Part of the Whangarei Harbour Marine Reserve is located around Motukaroro /Passage Island at Reotahi. McLeod Bay/Reotahi village has a higher permanent population than other coastal villages and there has been a moderate level of growth over recent years. There are some community facilities and a local eatery/dairy; however, the intention is that Parua Bay village will continue to accommodate the majority of commercial services in this area.

8.1.4 Under Rule RVE 2.1 of the Rural Plan Change, the proposal would be a Non- Complying Activity for a commercial activity in a residential zone.

8.1.5 The objectives and policies contained under RVE.1.2 and RVE.1.3 generally provide for the managed growth and consolidated residential activities in Rural Villages. These provisions when read together, set up an expectation that the amenity values and character of each rural village in maintained and enhanced, through ensuring that subdivision and development is design and constructed so that it is consistent with the descriptions and expectations for each rural village. The Rural Village Environment acknowledges the adverse effects that can come about from mixing commercial and residential land uses, and sets out the intention that commercial activities, be directed away from the Rural Village Residential Environment, and rather occur in Rural Village Centres.

8.1.6 The proposal is seen to be inconsistent with some of the objectives and policies of the Rural Village Environment, being for a commercial activity in the Rural Village Residential Environment. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposal will maintain the amenity values of the existing residential environment.

8.1.6 The application was originally lodged on the 15th of November 2017, before the notification of the decisions on the Rural Plan Changes. As such, little weight is afforded to the provisions of the Plan Change, with the Operative Plan being afforded more weight in the substantive consideration of the application.

9 Part 2 Matters 9.1 Section 5 – Purpose

9.1.1 Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 details the overarching purpose and principles of the Act. Part 2 of the Act requires that the proposed activity must meet the purpose of the Act set out in section 5 which is “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” As outlined in section 5(2), “sustainable management” means:

“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.”

9.1.2 It is acknowledged that the proposal “enables people and communities to provide for the social, economic… wellbeing” as it will provide an accommodation facility for visitor to the McLeod Bay area, will provide an economic enterprise for the applicants and may produce a small number of jobs in the area.

9.1.3 Notwithstanding the above, in section 6 of this report it has been concluded that the proposal does not adequately avoid, remedy or mitigated all potential adverse effects. It can therefore be argued that the proposal does not directly align with the principal of sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Moreover, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act, the enabling of “..people and communities to provide for their social, economic… wellbeing” should not be

29

achieved at the expense of residential amenity. Specifically, adverse effects from the intensification of human activity, and the location of a commercial facility and associated access way and carpark, adjacent to and orientated towards a residential site may compromise residential amenity characteristics such as privacy and “feeling of community for the inhabitants of 2014 Whangarei Heads Road and may cause adverse noise and nuisance effects resultant from human activity within the locality. In this instance, adverse effects of the proposed development are not avoided, remedied or mitigated. It is therefore concluded that the proposal as it stands, is not directly supportive of the purpose of the Act as set out in Section 5.

9.1.4 Section 5 of the Act is supported by a number of other ancillary principles contained in sections 6, 7 and 8 in Part 2 of the Act that provide decision makers with a set of guidelines that reflect current government policies and ideologies in regards to resource management, and assist in the interpretation of sustainable management. The relevance of these sections to the proposed land use is assessed below.

9.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

9.2.1 Section 6 identifies seven matters of national importance that must be recognised and provided for. In summary, these relate to the preservation of the rivers and their margins from inappropriate use and development, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes and areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habits; the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along rivers; the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions, and the protection of historic heritage.

9.2.2 The location of the site is not affecting any matters of national importance.

9.3 Section 7 – Other Matters

9.3.1 Section 7 of the Act identifies eleven other matters to be had regard to in achieving the purposes of the Act. The following are of relevance to the proposal;

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(d) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

9.3.2 No other matters are considered relevant in the consideration of this application.

9.4 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

9.4.1 Section 8 requires that decision makers take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources. Section 8 is not considered applicable to this application as the proposal does not affect the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

10 Conclusion & Recommendation 10.1 Conclusion

10.1.1 Section 104B of the Act requires that after considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority –

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

10.1.2 In accordance with section 104(1)(a) of the Act, it is concluded that the nature of the proposal, being for a commercial activity in a residential zone, will produce adverse effects on the residential character and amenity of the neighbouring site in the immediate locality, being 2014 Whangarei Heads Road. The proposal as it stand, is likely to diminish the amenity characteristics typically expected for this environment such as privacy and “feelings of community”. The orientation of the motel units and carpark towards this neighbouring site is likely to exacerbate these effects. Furthermore, it is not considered that the application provides sufficient information to determine the likely noise levels that will be generated by the activity as experienced by 2104 Whangarei Heads Road, and the volume of vehicle traffic generation, particularly when the motel is operating

30

at full capacity. The full effects of noise and traffic movements on the adjacent neighbours cannot therefore be determined.

10.1.3 Despite attempts via a pre- hearing meeting to find an amended proposal whereby the effects were considered acceptable, no agreed solution has been achieved.

10.1.4 The assessment of effects provided in the application places significant weight on the permitted baseline in order to discount the effects of the proposal on the receiving environment. However, it is considered that much of this assessment is not applicable in this instance as it relates to the effects of permitted residential activities that may occur on the site, while the proposal is for a commercial activity. Furthermore, the proposal differs from a typical residential scenario in that it intensifies human activity in one locality on the site, rather than dispersing it in accordance with the residential density standards for the zone.

10.1.5 In accordance with 104(1)(b) of the Act, it is concluded that while the proposal is consistent with some of the relevant objectives and policies in the Operative District Plan, it is also inconsistent or unsupportive with a number of them. The key objectives and policies seeking to retain character and amenity and avoid developmental threats to residential amenity, are not directly supported by this proposal as presented. This is specifically due to the nature of the proposal in the locality and layout and orientation proposed.

10.1.6 The proposal is not directly supportive with the purpose and principles of the Act set out within Part 2, as the nature and layout of the development may create adverse effects in terms of amenity and character that are incompatible in this environment.

10.1.7 Having considered the application against the relevant provisions of the Act, the proposal cannot be fully supported at this time. The resulting recommendation is to therefore decline the application as it stands. However, mitigation and potential design amendments may enable the recommendation to the altered and suitable consent conditions to be drafted and imposed. It is therefore suggested that the Applicant may wish to consider amending the application to relocate and re-orientate the building and car park away from the neighbours boundary, as well as including landscaping and screening around the proposed development site. The Applicant may also wish to provide a more specific assessment as to the expected noise and traffic generation from the proposal at the hearing.

10.2 Recommendation

THAT pursuant to sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended that Commissioner Bill Smith decline consent to the consent application by A Lydiard and S Hirst (LU1700183, P101132) to establish and operate six holiday apartments (motel units) on a 2.47 ha site at 2108 Whangarei Heads Road. The site is zoned Living 3 Environment under the Operative District Plan and the proposal is classed as a Discretionary Activity.

Reasons for the Recommendation: That pursuant to section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the reasons for this decision are as follows:

1. In accordance with section 104(1)(a) of the Act, it is concluded that the nature of the proposal, being for a commercial activity in a residential zone will produce adverse effects on the residential character and amenity of the neighbouring site in the immediate locality, being 2014 Whangarei Heads Road. The proposal as it stand, is likely to diminish the amenity characteristics typically expected for this environment such as privacy and “feelings of community”. The orientation of the motel units and carpark towards this neighbouring site is likely to exacerbate these effects. Furthermore, it is not considered that the application provides sufficient information to determine the likely noise levels that will be generated by the activity as experienced by 2104 Whangarei Heads Road, and the volume of vehicle traffic generation, particularly when the motel is operating at full capacity. The full effects of noise and traffic movements on the adjacent neighbours cannot therefore be determined. Despite attempts via a pre- hearing meeting to find an amended proposal whereby the effects were considered acceptable, no agreed solution has been achieved.

31

2. The assessment of effects provided in the application places significant weight on thepermitted baseline in order to discount the effects of the proposal on the receivingenvironment. However, it is considered that much of this assessment is not applicable in thisinstance as it relates to the effects of permitted residential activities that may occur on the site,while the proposal is for a commercial activity. Furthermore, the proposal differs from a typicalresidential scenario in that it intensifies human activity in one locality on the site, rather thandispersing it in accordance with the residential density standards for the zone.

3. In accordance with 104(1)(b) of the Act, it is concluded that while the proposal is consistentwith some of the relevant objectives and policies in the Operative District Plan, it is alsoinconsistent or unsupportive with a number of them. The key objectives and policies seekingto retain character and amenity and avoid developmental threats to residential amenity, arenot directly supported by this proposal as presented. This is specifically due to the nature ofthe proposal in the locality and layout and orientation proposed.

4. The proposal is not directly supportive with the purpose and principles of the Act set out withinPart 2, as the nature and layout of the development may create adverse effects in terms ofamenity and character that are incompatible in this environment.

Advice Notes: 1. The Applicant shall pay all charges set by Council under Section 36 of the Resource

Management Act 1991. The applicant will be advised of the charges as they fall.

2. Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides a right of appeal to this decision.Appeals must be in writing, setting out the reasons for the appeal, and lodged with theEnvironment Court within 15 working days after the decision has been notified to you.Appellants are also required to ensure that a copy of the notice of appeal is served on all otherrelevant parties.

Attachments 1. The application (as lodged)

2. Plans

3. S92 Information

4. Submissions

5. Engineering review report

6. Relevant correspondence

7. District Plan chapters

8. Residential Activity practice note

9. Management Plan

32

Attachments available on request. Please contact Consents Administration