Decision following the hearing of an application for resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 Proposal Establish and use four buildings along the edge of the Pine Harbour marina for commercial and residential activities. This resource consent is GRANTED. The reasons are set out below. Application number: LUC60305157 Site address: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands Applicant: Pine Harbour Marina Limited Hearing commenced: Wednesday 2 May and Thursday 3 May 2018, 9.30am Hearing panel: Philip Brown (Chairperson) Karyn Kurzeja Appearances: For the Applicant: Kitt Littlejohn (Counsel) Paul Brown (Architect) Curt Robinson (Noise) Vaughan Crang (Engineering) Leo Hills (Traffic) David Boersen (Applicant) Craig Shearer (Planning) For the Submitters: Grant Bowring (tabled evidence) Louise Pether Bruce Martin Elizabeth Scarborough Leonard Sneddon Leigh Jackson Jon Brett Kay Panther Knight on behalf of Kim Munro Graeme Caskey Richard Steel Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association represented by: Richard Steel Euan Little: Westhaven Marina Users 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 1 Neil Blackbourn: Hobsonville Berth Holders’ Association Paul Glass: Bayswater Berth Holders’ Association Robert Allsop-Smith: Gulf Harbour Berth Holders’ Assn For Council: Jane Neary, Principal Specialist Planning Rashida Sahib, Senior Planner Adrian Lamont, Arborist Devan Thambiah, Traffic Engineer Arun Niravath, Development Engineer Lyndon Westlake, Auckland Transport Paulette Kenihan, Senior Hearings Advisor Hearing adjourned 03 May 2018 Commissioners’ site visit 16 April 2018 Hearing Closed: 17 May 2018 Introduction 1. This decision is made on behalf of the Auckland Council (“the Council”) by Independent Hearing Commissioners Philip Brown and Karyn Kurzeja, appointed and acting under delegated authority under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”). 2. This decision contains the findings from our deliberations on the application for resource consent and has been prepared in accordance with section 113 of the RMA. 3. The application was publicly notified on 10 January 2018. A total of 49 submissions were received, with five in support, three were neutral, and 40 in opposition. Summary of proposal and activity status 4. The applicant proposes to establish and use four buildings along the edge of the Pine Harbour marina for commercial and residential activities. A full description of the proposal is provided under Section 3.2 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects report provided with the application, and titled “Application for Resource Consent to Erect a New Building and Undertake Commercial and Apartment Living Activities at 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Pine Harbour”, dated July 2017. However, in brief, the key features of the proposal include: • The four buildings would be three-storey in height and are proposed along the northern boundary of the site, directly fronting the southern edge of the 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 2 marina basin. Each proposed building includes a ground floor consisting of commercial tenancies (adjacent to the marina) and garaged parking spaces (adjacent to the private road), together with upper floors consisting of residential units (including balconies); • Each building would have a height of approximately 9m above ground level (which increases up to 11m for mechanical plants and lift shafts) and a depth of approximately 13m; • The four buildings would be separated from one other by approximately 6m, to provide for access, landscaped areas and view shafts between the marina and the private road. In addition, each building will provide a 3m veranda overhanging the public walkway adjacent to the marina (which will also be upgraded as part of the proposal); • Each of the buildings would connect to infrastructure services readily available to the site; • Associated works related to the proposal would include earthworks, construction of a flood protection wall, upgrading of an existing footpath, upgrading of an existing private road, removal of trees, and construction of a pedestrian and cycle path. 5. Relevant background to the application includes an existing unimplemented resource consent (Reference 50852, granted on 26 June 2017) that authorises the establishment of four two-storey buildings of very similar design to the buildings proposed in the current application, and in the same location. Each consented building includes a ground floor consisting of commercial tenancies and garaged parking spaces, while the upper floor would be comprised of office tenancies. 6. The proposal requires resource consent for the following reasons under the Auckland Unitary Plan, Operative in Part (‘AUP’): Regional land use consents (s9(2)) • Associated works related to the proposal would include earthworks, construction of a flood protection wall, upgrading of an existing footpath, upgrading of an existing private road, removal of trees, and construction of a pedestrian and cycle path. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E11.4.1(A9) for earthworks greater than 2,500m2 within the Sediment Control Protection 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 3 Area. Specifically, the proposal includes earthworks over an area of 6,481m2. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E15.4.1(A19) for vegetation alteration or removal within 10m of urban streams. A total of 13 trees within 10m of the stream to the south of the accessway are proposed to be removed. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E15.4.1(A21) for the removal of indigenous trees over 3m in height (and over an area greater than 25m2 of contiguous vegetation) within 20m of mean high water springs. A total of 44 indigenous trees within 20m of the coastal marine area (including the marina) are proposed to be removed. This does not apply to the 22 bangalow palm trees, as they are not indigenous. District land use consents (s9(3)) • Controlled Activity pursuant to Rule E36.4.1(A25) for surface parking areas in the 1% AEP floodplain that do not comply with Standard E36.6.1.7. Prior to the establishment of the proposed flood wall, parts of the proposed accessway and ground floor parking area are to be located where flood waters in a 1% AEP event would be between 200mm and 500mm. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E12.4.1(A6) for earthworks greater than 2,500m2. Specifically, the proposal includes earthworks over an area of 6,481m2. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule C1.9(2) for earthworks within the 1% AEP flood plain that consists of a fill volume greater than 10m3 (not complying with Standard E12.6.2(11)). • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E16.4.1(A10) for tree removal in an open space zone where the tree is greater than 4m in height or greater than 400mm in girth. This applies to 22 bangalow palm trees at 33R Puriri Road (the walkway). • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2) for parking, loading, and access that is an accessory activity but does not comply with the standards for parking, loading and access. Specifically: - The proposal does not comply with Standard E27.6.2.1(10) as the location of the proposed accessible parking spaces are not consistent with NZS4121-2001; and 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 4 - 7. The proposal does not comply with Standard E27.6.3.1(1)(d) as it includes a loading area that obstructs access to garaged parking spaces. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule E36.4.1(A37) for new buildings within the 1% AEP floodplain not otherwise provided for. Prior to the establishment of the proposed flood wall, parts of the proposed buildings are to be located within the floodplain. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule I431.4.3(A17) for the construction of new buildings in Pine Harbour Sub-Precinct F. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule I431.4.3(A19) for food and beverage activities in Pine Harbour Sub-Precinct F. A maximum gross floor area of 775m2 is proposed (all of the ground floor tenancies). • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule I431.4.3(A21) for dairies with a gross floor area greater than 100m2 in Pine Harbour Sub-Precinct F. Only one of the proposed ground floor tenancies would contain a dairy, with a gross floor area of up to 150m2. • Restricted Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule I431.4.3(A24) for marine retail activities with a gross floor area greater than 100m2 in Pine Harbour Sub-Precinct F. A maximum gross floor area of 775m2 is proposed (all of the ground floor tenancies). • Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule H7.9.1(A39) for new buildings in the Open Space – Informal Recreation zone that do not comply with one or more standards. The walkway veranda does not comply with Standard H7.11.3 Yards, as the veranda is closer than 3m to the boundary of Lot 1 DP 489019 (zoned Coastal – Marina) and is closer than 20m from mean high water springs. • Non-Complying Activity pursuant to Rule F3.4.2(A5) for residential apartment units on land within the Coastal – Marina Zone. Overall the proposal has been considered as a non-complying activity. Procedural matters 8. There were no procedural matters to be determined. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 5 Relevant statutory provisions considered 9. In accordance with section 104 of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant statutory provisions including the relevant sections of Part 2 and section(s) 104, 104B, 104D and 108. Relevant standards, policy statements and plan provisions considered 10. In accordance with section 104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the RMA, we have had regard to the relevant policy statements and plan provisions of the following documents: • National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (s104(1)(b)(iii)); • Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part – Chapter B (Regional Policy Statement) (s104(1)(b)(v)); and • Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (s104(1)(b)(vi)). 11. With regard to the later document, the objectives and policies of particular relevance are Marina Zone Objectives F3.2(2), F3.2(3), F3.2(4), F3.2(5) and F3.2(6), Marina Zone Policies F3.3(2), F3.3(4), F3.3(7), F3.3(8), F3.3(9) and F3.3(10), together with Pine Harbour Precinct Objectives I431.2(1), I431.2(2), I431.2(4), I431.2(5), I431.2(6), I431.2(7) and I431(8), and Pine Harbour Precinct Policies I431.3(1), I431.3(2), I431.3(3), I431.3(4), I431.3(5) and I431.3(6). 12. In addition, we considered various other objectives and policies that were summarised in Ms Sahib’s s42A report in respect of land disturbance, vegetation management, transport, and natural hazards. 13. We also considered the content of the submissions to be other matters that are relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application in accordance with section 104(1)(c) of the RMA. Local Board comments 14. No comments have been received by the Franklin local board. Summary of evidence heard 15. The s42A report, prepared by Rashida Sahib, was circulated prior to the hearing and taken as read. Attached to the report were copies of the application and 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 6 AEE, detailed plans, all of the submissions, and the expert reports from the Council’s specialist advisors. 16. The applicant’s expert evidence was pre-circulated to all parties in advance of the hearing. 17. The evidence presented at the hearing responded to the issues identified in Ms Sahib’s s42A report, the application itself, and the submissions made on the application. 18. The evidence presented by the applicant at the hearing is summarised below. For the applicant 19. The applicant’s legal counsel, Kitt Littlejohn, made legal submissions and introduced the members of the applicant’s project team who were to present evidence at the hearing. Mr Littlejohn noted that a relevant contextual feature of the application is the existing resource consent to develop buildings of a generally similar bulk and location as those proposed, with the only material difference between the two schemes being the use of the spaces within the buildings. However, he submitted that the proposed scheme merits approval in its own right and without reference to the existing commercial development consent. He submitted that resource consent should be granted, subject to conditions. 20. Paul Brown is the project architect and provided written evidence in relation to architectural matters. He described the proposed design and stepped us through the drawings, including the revisions to the final plan set since notification. Mr Brown also explained the design considerations that shaped the final proposal, particularly the applicant’s brief to design a residential building that largely matched the bulk and location of the consented buildings. 21. A written statement of evidence in relation to noise and acoustic matters was provided by Curt Robinson, an acoustic engineer. Mr Robinson proposed that a façade control be included as a condition of consent in order to ensure that apartments would be provided with an appropriate internal acoustic amenity. Mr Robinson considers that the façade control would allow rest and privacy within the apartments, thereby reducing the possibility of reverse sensitivity complaints in respect of marina activities. 22. Vaughan Crang is a civil engineer. He provided a written statement of evidence addressing the civil engineering aspects of the proposal, including drainage design, road geometrics, pavement design, utility servicing, flood modelling, and erosion and sediment control measures. Mr Crang considered that the 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 7 engineering aspects of the design, servicing and construction of the proposed development will meet recognised standards and he concluded that there are no civil engineering issues that would suggest consent should not be granted. 23. Traffic and transportation evidence was provided by Leo Hills, a specialist traffic and transport engineer. Mr Hills explained that the proposal does not comply with AUP transportation standards relating to permitted traffic generation, mobility parking space provision, and loading arrangements. He noted that the traffic generation contemplated by the proposal would be at a lower level than that projected if the consented development were to be established. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr Hills agreed that some form of traffic calming would be desirable within the private road in order to manage safety issues from vehicles reverse manoeuvring from the garages onto the carriageway. He also advised that parking provision for the marina and the proposed development satisfies AUP parking requirements. Overall, Mr Hills considers that the traffic and transportation related effects of the proposal would be less than minor. 24. David Boersen is the Property and Development Manager for Empire Capital Limited, which is the applicant’s parent company. He provided a written statement of evidence addressing matters including the operation and management of the Pine Harbour marina, and the status of berth holders and the obligations that exist under the berth holder licensing agreements. With regard to the existing resource consent, Mr Boersen confirmed that the applicant will implement that consent in the event that the current application is not granted. He explained that ‘no complaint’ covenants will be imposed on the title of the residential apartments to protect marina operations. He also pointed out that the berth holder licences do not include any obligation to provide parking spaces for berth holders. Mr Boersen’s conclusion was that the proposed mixed use development will enhance the marina without causing any significant impacts on marina operations or berth holders. 25. Planning evidence was provided by Craig Shearer, a planning consultant. Mr Shearer considered that the application was close to being in accordance with the provisions of the AUP, except that the buildings contain three storeys instead of the two storey limitation in the Pine Harbour Precinct, and the upper two storeys would contain dwellings. He also considered that the consented development was significant in the assessment of the proposal, in that it establishes the existing environment against which the proposal must be assessed. A key part of Mr Shearer’s evidence was his interpretation of Pine Harbour Precinct Policy I431.3(1), which requires that land use and development is generally in accordance with Precinct Plan 1. In his opinion, the words ‘generally in accordance with’ allow variation from Precinct Plan 1 provided that 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 8 the overall intent is generally achieved. Mr Shearer considered that dwellings within Sub-Precinct F could be enabled without being contrary to the policy. 26. Mr Shearer considered that the submitters’ concerns were largely about ‘convenience’, which in his opinion was not an RMA issue. His overall conclusions were that the differences (in terms of effects) between the consented and proposed development schemes are likely to be positive, that the application meets both limbs of the gateway test under s104D, and that the scale and form of the development will comply largely with what is envisaged under the Pine Harbour Precinct. For submitters in support 27. Kay Panther Knight presented written planning evidence on behalf of Kim Munro. Mr Munro was also present and able to respond to our questions. Ms Panther Knight considered that the effects of the proposal would be less than minor and that the development would be generally consistent with (and not contrary to) the relevant objectives and policies of the AUP. On that basis, she was also of the view that the proposal would satisfy both threshold tests in s104D of the RMA. 28. In response to our questions, Mr Munro stated that he intends to purchase one of the apartments if consent is granted and, while not currently a ‘boatie’, plans to buy a boat and berth it in the marina. For submitters in opposition 29. Grant Bowring provided a written statement of evidence that was tabled at the hearing. Mr Bowring is a berth holder at Pine Harbour marina. He opposed the proposal for a number of reasons relating to traffic management, parking, and flooding. He considered that the proposal would lead to an erosion of berth holders’ amenity value and usage. 30. Louise Pether is a berth holder at Pine Harbour marina and is opposed to the application. Ms Pether spoke to her written statement of evidence. She described the normal process for her and others to access their boats, noting that there are often heavy or unwieldy items to be moved from car to vessel and back again. In her opinion, convenient access to marina berths is essential and the proposal will unacceptably reduce marina amenities for berth holders. 31. A written statement of evidence was provided by Bruce Martin. Mr Martin is the secretary of the Pine Harbour Marina Berth Holders’ Association. He opposed the proposal for a number of reasons including a lack of consultation with berth holders, a failure to preserve amenities inherent in the berth holders’ leases, 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 9 traffic and parking congestion, and an absence of demonstrable demand for additional commercial space at the marina. 32. Elizabeth Scarborough appeared at the hearing to speak to her written statement of evidence. She is both a local resident and a berth holder, and has been part of the marina community for over 30 years. Ms Scarborough’s concerns are focused on parking related matters, relating to the design, allocation and overall availability of parking at the marina. In particular, she considered that insufficient disabled parking spaces were provided and, where they were present, the spaces were not located conveniently to the pier heads and other facilities. 33. Leonard Sneddon has been a berth holder at Pine Harbour marina for all but a few years since it was completed in the mid 1980’s. He opposed the application. Mr Sneddon considers that the proposal will erode privileges that berth holders obtained when purchasing leases. His concerns related to disrupted access and removal of convenient parking. Mr Sneddon considered that convenient access to berths was an essential element of the benefit of mooring in a marina, particularly due to the need to maintain and provision vessels. 34. Leigh Jackson spoke to his written statement of evidence. Mr Jackson is a berth holder, local resident, and regular commuter on the Pine Harbour ferry. He is opposed to the proposal on the basis that it would enable residential development in a new location when there is already ample provision for residential activities in the Pine Harbour Precinct, it would reduce amenity for berth holders, compromise access for emergency services, and undermine the core recreational boating function of the marina. 35. Jon Brett presented evidence in the form of a PowerPoint presentation (which was subsequently supplied to us). Mr Brett is a berth holder at the marina. His opposition to the proposal was founded on concerns about reductions in amenity for berth holders, adequacy of parking, safety and congestion issues, and a view that the applicant is attempting to revisit the AUP Independent Hearing Panel’s recent determination not to permit residential activities in Sub-Precinct F. 36. We received evidence from Graham Caskey via Skype from his home in Sydney. A copy of his presentation was also provided to us after the hearing had concluded. Despite being based in Australia, Mr Caskey makes fairly regular trips to the marina with his family in order to use his boat, which is berthed there. He considered that his rights as a berth holder would be undermined if the proposal were to proceed. His other issues included concerns about pedestrian safety, parking congestion, prioritisation of residential uses over functional marina activities, and lack of demand for commercial tenancy space. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 10 37. Richard Steel presented written evidence on behalf of himself and Alecia Steel. They are berth holders at Pine Harbour marina and currently sub-lease both of their berths on a monthly basis. Mr Steel is also the Chairman of the Pine Harbour Berth Holders’ Association, for whom he also presented evidence. In his personal capacity, Mr Steel’s concerns focused on inundation from flooding and sea level rise, effects arising from lack of ‘park and ride’ provision for the ferry service, and stormwater drainage. 38. As noted, Mr Steel also presented evidence for the Pine Harbour Berth Holders’ Association, and coordinated the presentation of other evidence called by that submitter. His evidence for the Association was detailed and comprehensive, and covered a number of matters. 39. Mr Steel considered that a Plan Change was a more appropriate consenting path than a resource consent application, and was of the opinion that the proposal will not pass the s104D gateway test. He also considered that there was no valid or useful permitted baseline of relevance to the proposal. 40. Mr Steel argued that the existing resource consent cannot form part of the receiving environment because it is mutually exclusive to the proposal and is unlikely to be implemented. He furnished a legal opinion from Matthew Allan of Brookfields Lawyers in relation to this point, although we note that Mr Allan was not present at the hearing to address any questions we may have had. 41. In addition, Mr Steel addressed a number of development standards from the Precinct and Marina Zone relating to the number of floors within the proposed building, the use itself, and the height in relation to boundary standard. He considered that the failure to comply with development standards demonstrated a misalignment with Precinct Plan 1. Mr Steel considered that this outcome was contrary to Policy I431.3(1), which requires development to be generally in accordance with the Precinct Plan. 42. Mr Steel provided a detailed explanation of his views on a number of the relevant objectives and policies from the AUP, leading to his conclusion that the proposal is (on balance) contrary to the objectives and policies of the Plan. 43. In addition to Mr Steel’s evidence and the legal opinion from Mr Allan, we also received evidence in support of the Pine Harbour Marina Berth Holders’ Association from several witnesses associated with berth holders’ groups from other marinas around the region. This evidence was from Euan Little (Westhaven Marina Users’ Association), Neil Blackbourn (Hobsonville Berth Holders’ Association), Paul Glass (Bayswater Berth Holders’ Association), and Robert Allsopp-Smith (Gulf Harbour Berth Holders’ Association). Concerns expressed related generally to reverse sensitivity issues, and reduction in the 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 11 amenity and accessibility of marina berths due to development that is not directly related to recreational boating, including residential development. For the Council 44. At the conclusion of evidence from the submitters, the Council specialists were invited to comment on any matters that they had heard in evidence. 45. Mr Westlake indicated that Auckland Transport intended to investigate public transport improvements in the future in this location, including potential for bus transfers to the commuter ferry. Mr Thambiah advised that he would prefer the more generous parking layout and geometry sought by submitters, even though it would result in less car parking spaces overall, and wished to see centrelines marked within the private road. Mr Niravath noted that the AUP allows 200mm depth of flooding on vehicle carriageways and noted that modelling undertaken to predict flood impacts had assumed that pipes were blocked. He also confirmed that there is no requirement for the commercial floor space to be placed above the projected flood level. 46. Ms Sahib rounded up the Council response by confirming her recommendation that consent should be granted. She accepted that a 10-year lapse date was appropriate and suggested that conditions requiring management plans for construction and parking would be desirable. For the applicant (in reply) 47. Mr Littlejohn provided an oral reply at the end of the hearing and followed that up with a written version. His written reply clarified matters from the hearing and responded to issues raised by submitters. It was accompanied by a complete final set of the application drawings together with a set of revised recommended conditions addressing matters that had arisen during the course of the hearing. Principal issues in contention 48. After analysis of the application and evidence (including proposed mitigation measures), undertaking a site visit, reviewing the Council planning officer’s recommendation report, reviewing the submissions and concluding the hearing process, the proposed activity raises a number of issues for consideration. The principal issues in contention are: • Does the proposed use limit or conflict with marina activities? 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 12 • Will this proposal undermine the commercial purpose of Sub-Precinct F, when other sub-precincts (specifically B, C and D) specifically contemplate and provide for residential dwellings as a restricted discretionary activity? • Is the proposal ‘generally in accordance with’ the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan 1? • Are the transport benefits integrated? • Of what relevance is the existing consent? • Do Precinct objectives and policies take precedence over Marina zone objectives and policies? • Is convenience an RMA effect and, if so, does it impact on amenity values? Main findings on the principal issues in contention 49. Our main findings on the principal issues that were in contention are set out below. Does the proposed use limit or conflict with marina activities? 50. The Coastal - Marina Zone (CMZ) provides for the development and operation of various established marinas, including both their land and the water components. The CMZ applies to 10 marinas in Auckland, including the Pine Harbour marina at Beachlands. 51. The objectives and policies of the CMZ set out in F3.2 and F3.3 outline the purpose of the zone and seek to promote integrated management of activities and effects that cross mean high water springs. The objectives and policies of this zone that we consider to be the most relevant to our consideration of this question are: “Objective (5) Activities in the Coastal – Marina Zone that have a functional need for a coastal location have priority over those that do not.” “Policy (2) Provide for marine-related and other compatible business activities, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the coastal environment and adjacent land zoned for residential or open space purposes.” 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 13 “Policy (10) Allow activities that do not have a functional need for a coastal location only where all of the following can be demonstrated: (a) The proposed activities will not conflict with, or limit, the operation of marina activities, maritime passenger operations or other marine-related activities that are undertaken in the Coastal – Marine zone; … (c) Adequate provision remains for existing activities that have a functional or operational need for a coastal location;” 52. Chapter I431 of the AUP states that the key purpose of the Pine Harbour Precinct (PHP) is to implement the precinct plan (1431.10.1 Pine Harbour: Precinct Plan 1) to ensure that the Precinct creates high quality mixed use development which is integrated with the wider Beachlands settlement. The PHP is divided into seven sub-precincts encompassing land based marine industry, residential and commercial activity and open space purposes. 53. The proposal is located within Sub-Precinct F – Marina Commercial which: “covers the existing commercial buildings and the additional area which may be required for future commercial buildings servicing the marina and marine-related uses, such as marine retail and offices. Sub-precinct F does not provide for marine industrial activities. Sub-precinct F is located adjacent to the current ferry terminal.” 54. The proposed development is essentially seeking to use the upper floor of the consented commercial development for residential activities, in preference to the consented office use of this space. The proposed buildings effectively modify the internal layout of the consented buildings so that there are two floors of residential development above the ground floor retail area. A total of 14 apartments on each floor are proposed, comprising 26, three bedroom apartments and two, two-bedroom apartments. 55. The following activities are provided for in Sub-Precinct F as a permitted activity, subject to compliance with the standards set out in I431.6: • Clubrooms for marine related clubs • Dairies with a gross floor area up to 100m2 • Offices • Marine retail with a gross floor area up to 100m2 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 14 • 56. Public transport facilities Activities that are contemplated and provided for as a restricted discretionary activity in Sub-Precinct F include: • The construction of new buildings • Food and beverage • Dairies with a gross floor area up to 100m2 • Marine retail with a gross floor area greater than 100m2 57. On the basis of the above activity statuses, it seems that these activities are deemed to have a functional need in Sub-Precinct F, and in turn take priority over all other activities that do not have this functional need to locate within this sub-precinct. 58. In referring to the existing resource consent for four commercial buildings in this same location, Mr Shearer notes that a key feature of these buildings is that they were to accommodate a mix of commercial and retail activities: “This included offices, food and beverage, marine retail, a dairy, and potentially clubrooms.” Mr Shearer identified that, apart from the modification of the second storey to form two levels of apartments, all other aspects of the proposal are identical to the existing consented project. 59. Mr Shearer goes on to note in paragraph 7.26 of his evidence that “there are a number of components of the proposal not strictly in accordance with the Plan. Although residential use is not specifically identified as planned for in subprecinct F, commercial buildings are. So in terms of uses the provisions of commercial uses means Precinct Plan 1 is partially achieved in terms of use, albeit on the ground floor only.” 60. Mr Shearer’s assessment of these ‘functional need’ objectives and policies (particularly Policy F3.3(10)) is that “the proposed activities do not prevent functional marina activities from locating in the wider precinct – they are prioritised in sub-precincts set down for functional activities such as sub-precinct C (marina commercial) and the marina berthing area. Provision is made for potential Marina Retail within the new building.” Mr Shearer goes on to state that “the proposed activities, such as residential development will not conflict with but rather complement the marina activities. Berth holders will still have access to their marinas, will have the opportunity to live near their boats; and the ferry services will have enhanced potential passengers and improved facilities (bus stops).” 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 15 61. Mr Shearer’s last point is resonant in respect of the policy considerations. We agree that the proposal will not significantly limit or conflict with the use of the marina for berthing recreational vessels. Berth holders will continue to be able to gain access to their boats, albeit over a greater distance and with an increased level of inconvenience in some instances. 62. We heard evidence from Mr Boersen that there is sufficient provision for activities at Pine Harbour that have a functional and operational need for a coastal location. Mr Shearer notes in paragraph 7.26 “Experience at leasing elsewhere at Pine Harbour is that commercial uses above ground floor are difficult to lease, but this is not the case for residential uses.” This outcome was evident during our site visit to the property, where we noted that a number of commercial spaces were available for lease. In addition, several businesses that do not fall within the definition of marina activities are currently leasing space, such as a café and restaurant, a dental practice and a hair and beauty salon. 63. We questioned several witnesses on the potential for adverse effects to arise from the use of the upper two levels for residential accommodation. Mr Shearer responded by saying that the only potential for adverse effects arising relates to reverse sensitivity. This was also acknowledged in the opening legal submissions of Mr Littlejohn, who noted that “these potential effects will be managed in the usual manner, by a combination of building features (acoustic insulation and ventilation) and legal notices (no-complaints covenants).” 64. Mr Robinson noted in his evidence that the current activities will readily comply with the AUP 60 dBA noise limit at the façade of the proposed buildings in the CMZ, however a permitted future activity may generate more noise and the residential building should be designed with this consideration in mind. Consequently, Mr Robinson has recommended that the façade should be designed to result in an internal noise level in habitable rooms that does not exceed 40 dB LAeq, and 35 dB L Aeq for bedrooms. These limits align with the internal noise standards set out in the AUP. Mr Robinson states; “I consider that this standard provides good internal acoustic amenity within the apartments and, with the appropriate ventilation controls, allows rest and privacy inside the apartments, thereby reducing the possibility or reverse sensitivity complaints to marina activities.” 65. Mr Robinson further advised: “I have reviewed the Council Officer’s report and agree with the proposed conditions relating to noise if Consent is granted. I also agree that meeting the Conditions would ensure that the acoustic effects are no more than minor.” Further, “I have read the submitters concerns regarding noise and consider that the recommended conditions as well as management measures would be sufficient to address all of those concerns to an acceptable level.” 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 16 66. We note that Ms Panther Knight also addressed Policy F3.3(10). Ms Panther Knight stated: “the applicant has demonstrated how the proposed residential use will be managed to avoid reverse sensitivity effects so as to avoid conflicting with or resulting in a future limitation on the operation of marina activities. I accept and endorse these measures.” 67. We find that the proposed upper two floors of residential development will not conflict with, or limit the operation of marina activities, maritime passenger operations or other marine-related activities that are undertaken in this zone. There remains adequate provision for existing and future activities that have a functional or operational need for a coastal location within this sub-precinct. Further, the imposition of acoustic treatment for residential units in the form of conditions of consent and ‘no-complaints’ covenants on the titles of the residential units will avoid reverse sensitivity effects from the establishment of the dwellings and, as a result, will avoid conflict with the marina activities. Will this proposal undermine the commercial purpose of Sub-Precinct F? 68. This question sits in the context of the Precinct overall, where sub-precincts B, C and D contemplate and provide for residential dwellings as a restricted discretionary activity. There is no specific provision for residential activity within the Sub-Precinct F provisions, and we were advised that this means dwellings are a non-complying activity due to their status under the overlapping CMZ. 69. The applicant has sought resource consent on the basis that the dwellings which are proposed to be located in Sub-Precinct F are a non-complying activity. The applicant has provided all of the necessary assessments under s104D and 104(1) and (2) and section 104B. 70. We find that there is the ability in the provisions for resource consent to be sought for dwellings in this sub-precinct, on the basis of the underlying zoning. It is not a prohibited activity to seek the location of dwellings in this sub-precinct. 71. Having considered this question carefully, we have reached a view that the proposal will not undermine the purpose of Sub-Precinct F, as each application will be considered on its merits, and the purpose of the sub-precinct will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. It is acknowledged that there are other sub-precincts that provide for dwellings as a restricted discretionary activity and these sub-precincts have the sole purpose of providing for the location of dwellings in the Precinct. We also acknowledge that Sub-Precinct F has been specifically identified for marina commercial and office activity and has been provided in this location due to its close proximity to the marina itself, so that land based marina related activity or marina complementary activity can be established there. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 17 72. However, as we have discussed, this activity is able to establish within the upper floors of the consented commercial building without resulting in adverse effects on the development and operations of this established marina. We have received expert evidence that reverse sensitivity is the only potential effect that could arise from this proposal and we conclude that this can be adequately addressed through conditions of resource consent requiring good internal acoustic amenity within the apartments and, with the appropriate ventilation controls, allows rest and privacy. This outcome would reduce the possibility for reverse sensitivity complaints in respect of legitimate marina activities. 73. In addition, we impose a condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate to the Council that protection of the marina and its operations from potential reverse sensitivity complaints or actions has been secured by way of a ‘no-complaints’ covenant on each apartment’s title, binding the owner of the apartment and their successors on an on-going basis. We therefore conclude that this proposal will not undermine the commercial purpose of sub-precinct F. Is the proposal ‘generally in accordance with’ the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan 1? 74. As discussed above, the key purpose of the Pine Harbour Precinct is to implement the precinct plan (I431.10.1 Pine Harbour: Precinct Plan 1) to ensure that the precinct creates high quality mixed use development that is integrated with the wider Beachlands settlement. In addition, Policy I431.3(1) states: “Require land use, subdivision and development to be generally in accordance with Pine Harbour: Precinct plan 1.” 75. The first standard that any permitted activity is required to meet is standard I431.6.1 ‘Development within the Precinct’, which states: “(1) All development within the precinct must be in general accordance with Pine Harbour: Precinct Plan 1.” Mr Shearer acknowledges that this is a key aspect of any proposal. 76. Mr Shearer states: “My interpretation is that provided the overall intent of the provisions are achieved across the precinct then the development would be in accordance with the Plan – that is, the policy provides for variation from the plan to occur so long as the overall intent is ‘generally’ achieved. This clearly leaves the door open for variations to the plan, such as providing for dwellings within sub-precinct F in my opinion.” 77. Ms Panther Knight agreed with Mr Shearer stating “that the Precinct provisions are essentially silent on locations for residential activity, which combined with the “general accordance” discretion set out in the Precinct’s policies, leaves room for open-minded consideration of an application such as that proposed.” 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 18 78. Mr Allan’s tabled legal opinion also addressed this matter. He was asked (by the Pine Harbour Berth Holders’ Association) whether he agreed with Mr Shearer’s interpretation of the phrase “generally in accordance with” in Policy I431(1). In his written opinion he answered: “we do not agree with Mr Shearer’s interpretation, which is inconsistent with relevant case law. The phrase “generally in accordance with” provides only limited flexibility for departures from the Precinct plan (for instance, it would not, in our opinion, provide flexibility for a large residential development in the marine commercial or marine industrial subprecincts).” 79. In his closing legal submissions, Mr Littlejohn addresses this matter in paragraphs 2.5 – 2.8. He submits: The phrase “generally in accordance with” is an evaluative criterion to assist in determining how far something might deviate from the expectation – “generally” being the tolerable extent of deviation. Here, the expectation is not just as to location, but also as to activity type, because that is what the Precinct provisions enable to varying degrees. He goes on to say: “Residential is anticipated; its location other than in the preferred sub-Precinct must be “generally” acceptable.” 80. In his paragraph 2.7, Mr Littlejohn states “I do not agree with Mr Allan’s opinion in relation to the application of this phrase to planning provisions (refer to the Brookfields legal opinion tabled by the Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association). What is clear from the case law is that the amount of “wriggle room” provided by the phrase must be interpreted by reference to the context within which it is used. When used in a resource consent condition (as the cases to which Mr Allan refers demonstrate) the phrase provides for less “wriggle room”, as it is to be interpreted by reference to the specific plans and proposal authorised by the consent.” 81. Mr Littlejohn goes on to say: “however, where the phrase is used in planning provisions which are not prescriptive and provide for a range of activities within the applicable area to which they relate the “wriggle room” to depart from the preference is greater in my submission. Put another way, it is difficult to be “contrary” to a policy that seeks only general accordance. At most, it might be said that there is inconsistency, but that does not infringe the s104D(1)(b) gateway, and in the absence of any stronger policy offence from other AUP provisions (which there is not), this inconsistency should be of no impediment to this aspect of statutory assessment.” 82. On the basis of the evidence before us, we agree with Mr Littlejohn. We note that we did not have the opportunity to ask questions of Mr Allan as he was not present at the Council hearing. While it remains arguable whether the application is in general accordance with the Precinct plan, as dwellings are not contemplated nor specifically provided for in Sub-Precinct F, it is probably 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 19 immaterial in the end to the outcome of the application. As Mr Littlejohn noted, it is difficult to find that the application is contrary to a policy that only seeks that a proposal be in general accordance with the Precinct plan. Are the transport benefits integrated? 83. We were advised that a key purpose of the Pine Harbour marina precinct is as a public transport node, which provides passenger ferry services to the Auckland Central Business District from the Beachlands and Maraetai settlements and the surrounding rural area. 84. Mr Boerson advised in paragraph 7.8 of his evidence that “there is no consented or otherwise legally established park and ride facility at Pine Harbour marina.” Furthermore, he noted that “there is currently no provision for bus access to the marina.” 85. A component of the overall proposal is that it is seeking to provide two bus stops on the private road, next to the ferry terminal. Mr Boersen explained that the buses “will then be able to stop and allow passengers to disembark in close proximity to the ferry terminal. Buses can then continue along the private road and turn around at the end of the reserve parking area.” 86. In addition, wider public walkways will be integrated with the ground floor retail units which will also provide for a covered walkway connection to the ferry for a significant part of the journey. 87. Consequently, we find that this proposal will provide direct integration with the return ferry service that operates between Pine Harbour and the CBD through the provision of bus stops for a future connecting bus service to this ferry service, and through enhanced pedestrian facilities. Of what relevance is the existing consent? 88. There was significant discussion at the hearing in relation to the existing unimplemented resource consent. 89. A number of the submitters suggested that the existing consent was put forward as a tactic to re-litigate the earlier conclusions of the AUP Independent Hearing Panel in respect of Sub-Precinct F. We acknowledge that possibility, but also find that there is nothing inherently wrong with such an approach and, in any event, the motivation for obtaining the existing consent is irrelevant to our current considerations. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 20 90. However, we cannot ignore the existence of the consent, or Mr Boersen’s evidence that it would be implemented if the current application is not granted. We also favoured Mr Littlejohn’s explanation of the relevant law with regard to the unimplemented consent over the written opinion provided by Mr Allan. In these circumstances we have taken the view that the granted resource consent is a part of the existing environment and it has been a reasonably prominent aspect of our considerations accordingly. 91. Having reached a view that the unimplemented resource consent forms part of the existing environment, we then turned our minds to its implications for the current application. Foremost amongst these is an understanding that any effects arising from the physical form of the buildings (such as submitters’ concerns relating to inconvenient access, erosion of amenity, and insufficient parking), would all occur irrespective of whether the current application is granted or refused. 92. We consider therefore that the only material difference between the consented and current development proposals is that the latter would contain residential activities. As we have already concluded, potential reverse sensitivity effects relating to residential use can be mitigated sufficiently though acoustic treatment of the buildings and through the use of ‘no-complaints’ covenants. Do Precinct objectives and policies take precedence over Marina zone objectives and policies? 93. The application is put forward on land where the AUP has applied a zone and a precinct to the same piece of land. This raises a question as to whether one has precedence over the other and which objectives and policies are to be preferred if there is any tension or conflict between outcomes that are sought. 94. Mr Shearer (at paragraph 8.13 of his evidence) considered that the precinct provisions prevail if there is a conflict with the CMZ provisions. That view was not accepted by Mr Steel, who considered that the precinct provisions do not have precedence over those of the CMZ. Having heard the evidence on this issue, we are of the view that both sets of provisions apply to the proposal and neither has any particular precedence over the other. We have assessed the application in this context. 95. However, for reasons that we have discussed, we have reached a view that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the AUP, including those from both the precinct and the CMZ. While the residential use does not have a functional need for this location, and hence is of a lesser priority than marina commercial activities, the evidence before us was that the residential use would not prevent marina commercial activities from establishing in this location. We 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 21 were also persuaded that the proposal would not limit or conflict with marina activities. 96. A further matter that had some bearing on our view in relation to the residential use within the CMZ is that, while the rules identify dwellings as a non-complying activity, there is no transparent basis for that approach outlined in the objectives and policies. As a consequence, we have placed somewhat less emphasis on the activity status of dwellings than might have been the case had there been a coherent link between the rules and the objectives and policies that they are intended to implement. Is convenience an RMA effect and, if so, does it impact on amenity values? 97. A key focus of a number of the submitters was that the proposal would adversely impact on their amenity values, which we understood to loosely correlate to the convenient level of access to their marina berths that they currently enjoy. 98. Mr Shearer’s opinion, at least initially, was that the submitters’ concerns were focused on ‘convenience’ and this is not a RMA issue. 99. Our view is that the impact on convenient access for berth holders is a legitimate RMA effect that we are entitled to consider. We would not go quite as far as characterising it as an effect on ‘amenity values’, as the current convenience of access primarily reflects a package of benefits purchased through berth holder licences and enabled by the marina operator as a private land owner. This does not sit comfortably with the RMA definition of ‘amenity values’, which refers to “those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes”. Nevertheless, we accept that impacts on access are a valid effect on berth holders and we have considered those effects in determining the application. 100. In that respect, we agree that the proposal will reduce convenience for a number of berth holders. However, we consider that those effects do not reach a threshold whereby they demand refusal of the application. They are essentially an inconvenience to berth holders. Ultimately, the marina owner has made a commercial decision to impose that level of inconvenience on berth holders in the knowledge that it may potentially reduce the value of its recreational asset and result in some berth holders re-evaluating their berthing options. Decision 101. In exercising our delegation under sections 34 and 34A of the RMA and having regard to the foregoing matters, sections 104, 104B, 104D, 108 and Part 2 of the 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 22 RMA, we determine that resource consent for the non-complying activity consent to construct four buildings for commercial and residential activities with associated earthworks, construction of a flood protection wall, upgrading of an existing footpath, upgrading of an existing private road, removal of trees, construction of a pedestrian and cycle path and connection to infrastructure services is granted for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out below. Reasons for the decision i. The proposal passes the section 104D gateway as the adverse effects of the activity on the environment have been determined to be no more than minor, and the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the AUP. ii. In accordance with an assessment under s104(1)(a) of the RMA, the actual and potential effects from the proposal will be avoided or mitigated as: • The scale and type of development is consistent with that established in other parts of the site, and the overall layout and appearance will be of a similar amenity; • The mix of land uses proposed will support the wider function of the site as a marina and support its operation as a passenger transport node; • Acoustic insulation/treatment requirements for the proposed residential apartments will ensure that adverse reverse sensitivity effects related to noise will not occur; • Although the accessway (private road) has not been relocated to strictly accord with the Pine Harbour Precinct Plan, the proposal provides a high level of public access (via new pedestrian and cycling walkaways through the site and to the south of the site as well as a resurfaced access along the northern site boundary), and new provision for bus stops near the ferry terminal provides the same transport function as the alignment shown on the Precinct Plan; • Flooding and coastal hazard effects can be minimised through the installation of a flood wall and through the set minimum floor levels for residential parts of the buildings; • Although the proposal seeks to remove a large number of trees within the site, adequate mitigation can be provided onsite through landscape treatment and new planting; • The proposal includes sufficient and effective sediment control measures in accordance with current best practice. Any adverse effects arising from 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 23 the proposal can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through the imposition of conditions, including conditions to ensure the works are undertaken within the scope of the application and in an appropriate and timely manner, with the necessary measures in place at the relevant time; iii. • Suitable wastewater, stormwater disposal and water supply can be provided to service the proposed development; • While current levels of access for some berth holders may be reduced and less convenient, suitable access will still be available. The same effects would arise from exercise of the existing unimplemented consent, which forms part of the existing environment in this location. In accordance with an assessment under s104(1)(b) of the RMA the proposal is generally consistent with the relevant statutory documents. In particular, the scale and type of development is generally consistent with the Pine Harbour Precinct, and the proposal generally accords with the anticipated environmental outcomes for the area which specifically envisage a mix of activities to support the marina and passenger services. Marina activities would not be limited, or conflicted with, to any significant extent. iv. In accordance with an assessment under s104(1)(c) of the RMA, other matters including monitoring and the content of submissions have been considered in reaching a decision to grant consent. We are persuaded that a 10-year lapse date is appropriate in this instance, given the scale of the proposal and the potential for the buildings to be established separately and in accordance with market demand and economic conditions. v. The proposal achieves the sustainable management purpose of the RMA under Part 2 as the proposal provides for the efficient use of land (zoned Marina and within the Pine Harbour Precinct), and through the imposition of conditions any adverse effects resulting from the activities can be adequately avoided or mitigated, therefore ensuring that the environmental qualities and amenity values of the site (and the surrounding environment) are consistent with the outcomes envisaged by the relevant zone and precinct. Conditions Under section 108, I recommend any grant of these resource consents is subject to the following conditions: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 24 General Conditions 1. The activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, detailed below, and all referenced by the Council as consent number LUC60305157, including the following: • • Application Form, and Assessment of Environmental Effects titled "Application for Resource Consent - To Erect a New Building and Undertake Various Commercial Activities and Apartment Living Activities at 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Pine Harbour" prepared by Craig Shearer of Shearer Consulting dated July 2017, including the following appended reports: Report title and reference Author Rev Dated Engineering Report – Pine Harbour Marina – Commercial/Residential Buildings – Beachlands CrangCivil Consulting Engineers D July 2017 Traffic Assessment Report – Pine Harbour, Beachlands Commute Transportation Consultants 29 July 2017 Arboricultural Assessment – Pine Harbour Marina, Beachlands GreensceneNZ 14 July 2017 Section 92 response prepared by Craig Shearer of Shearer Consulting dated 18 September 2017, including the following appended report: Other additional information 190 Jack Lachlan Drive Pine Harbour Author Dated Marshall Day Acoustics 14 September 2017 Email from Craig Shearer dated 31/10/2017 titled "FW: Pine Harbour Amended RC" (including the attachment of an updated plan set, and email included in Craig's email from Chloe Lovell of PB&A Architects dated 30/10/17 to Craig Shearer titled "Pine Harbour Amended RC") • The following plans: Plan Number Plan Title C110 Existing Survey C111 Existing Survey CrangCivil D C120 Finished Levels CrangCivil D 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 Author CrangCivil Rev D Date July 2017 July 2017 July 25 Plan Number Plan Title Author Rev C121 Finished Levels CrangCivil D C130 Cut Fill Depth Plan CrangCivil D C140 Existing Services Plan CrangCivil C C141 Existing Services Plan CrangCivil C C142 Existing Services Plan CrangCivil C CrangCivil D CrangCivil D CrangCivil B C200 C201 C210 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Standard Details C300 Roading Plan CrangCivil D C301 Roading Plan CrangCivil D C305 Roading Longsection CrangCivil C CrangCivil B CrangCivil B C310 C311 Roading Typical Cross Sections Roading Typical Cross Sections C315 Roading Cross Sections CrangCivil D C400 Stormwater Plan CrangCivil D C401 Stormwater Plan CrangCivil D C402 HES-RAS Cross Sections Layout CrangCivil A C405 Stormwater Longsections CrangCivil D C410 Stormwater Channel Cross Sections CrangCivil C C415 Proposed Wall Longsection CrangCivil E C500 Sanitary Sewer Plan CrangCivil D C501 Sanitary Sewer Plan CrangCivil D C505 Sanitary Sewer Plan CrangCivil E 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 Date 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 2017 July 26 Plan Number Plan Title C700 Standard Details RC000 Site Location RC005 Development Plan RC008 Maximum Height Plane RC100 Site Plan – Existing Carparks RC101 RC102 Site Plan – Proposed Building and Carparks Ground – Commercial & Parking RC103 Level 1 RC104 Level 2 RC105 Roof Plan RC110 Building 1 Plans RC111 Building 1 Elevations RC112 Building 1 Perspectives RC120 Building 2 Ground Floor Plan RC121 Building 2 Level 1 & 2 RC123 Building 2 Elevations RC125 Building 2 Perspectives RC130 Building 3 Ground Floor Plan RC131 Building 3 Level 1 & 2 Plan RC133 Building 3 Elevations RC135 Building 3 Perspectives RC140 Building 4 Floor Plans RC144 Building 4 Elevations RC145 Building 4 Perspectives RC152 Perspectives 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 Author CrangCivil PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects PB&A Architects Rev B 9 3 11 14 14 14 12 7 7 11 9 3 12 9 9 3 12 8 9 3 7 9 3 8 Date 2017 July 2017 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 2 May 2018 27 2. 3. Plan Number Plan Title Author RC153 Perspectives PB&A Architects Rev 5 Date 2 May 2018 Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses ten years after the date it is granted unless: a. The consent is given effect to; or b. The council extends the period after which the consent lapses. The consent holder shall pay the council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $960 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent/s. Advice note: The initial monitoring deposit is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc., all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, monitoring of conditions, in excess of those covered by the deposit, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. The consent holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge. Access to Property 4. Until all the conditions of this Resource Consent have been completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Team Leader - Compliance and Monitoring (South), servants or agents of Auckland Council shall be permitted to have access to relevant parts of the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys, investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples whilst adhering to the Consent Holder’s Health and Safety Policy. Specific Conditions – Regional Earthworks Consent Duration 5. Land use consent for the earthworks activity under section 9(2) of the RMA shall expire 10 years from the date issued unless it has lapsed, been surrendered or cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA. Seasonal Restriction 6. No earthworks shall be undertaken on the site between 30 April and 1 October in any year, without the prior written approval of the Team Leader – Southern Monitoring at least two weeks prior to 30 April of any year. Revegetation/stabilisation is to be completed by 30 April in accordance with 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 28 measures detailed in Council Standard GD05 and any amendments to this document. Pre-development Conditions Construction Management Plan 7. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, the consent holder shall prepare a Construction Management Plan (‘CMP’), which shall be submitted to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South for approval. No construction activity shall commence until written approval of the CMP has been obtained from the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South and all measures identified in that plan as needing to be established prior to commencement of works have been established on site. The CMP shall be implemented and maintained throughout the construction period. The CMP shall contain specific details relating to the construction and management of the approved works, including: i. Contact details of the appointed contractor or project manager (phone number, e-mail, postal address); ii. A general outline of the construction programme for each stage of development; iii. Measures to be adopted to maintain areas of the site that are visible from public spaces and private property in a tidy condition in terms of rubbish disposal, storage and unloading of materials, etc; iv. Plans showing areas where stockpiles etc., equipment (including contractor parking) will occur so that there is no obstruction of public spaces (e.g. roads); v. Plans showing the location of any site offices, staff facilities and staff car parking required during the construction period; vi. An overview of measures that will be adopted to prevent unauthorised public access during the construction period; vii. Procedures for controlling sediment run-off, dust, and the removal/ introduction of soil, debris, and materials associated with construction and/ or demolition (if necessary); viii. Dust mitigation/ suppression measures to ensure that there is no airborne or deposited dust beyond the subject site as a result of the earthworks activity that is noxious, offensive or objectionable; ix. Procedures for ensuring that residents in the immediate vicinity of the construction area are given prior notice of the commencement of 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 29 construction activities and are informed about the expected duration of works and potential effects of the works (e.g. noise); and x. How access to marina pier heads and power and water services to marina berths will be maintained during construction. The CMP shall also incorporate a Traffic Management Plan, which includes: xi. Measures to ensure the safe and efficient movement of the travelling public (pedestrians, vehicle occupants, local residents etc.) and access to the public carparking area and for emergency vehicles; xii. Restriction of the hours of vehicle movements to protect amenity of surrounding environment during earthworks phase; xiii. Details of site access and exit points and how these will function; and xiv. Signage warning motorists and pedestrians construction related vehicle movements. of earthworks and Advice Note: The purpose of the CMP is to set out the management procedures and construction methods to be undertaken in order to avoid, remedy, or mitigate potential adverse effects arising from the construction period. Pre-start Meeting 8. Prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity, the consent holder shall hold a pre-start meeting that: a. is located on the subject site; b. is scheduled not less than five days before the anticipated commencement of the activity; c. includes Council’s Development Engineer, Watercare’s Inspections Team and Council’s Monitoring Team; d. includes the applicant’s agent and/or engineer/surveyor responsible for ‘signing off’ completion of works in accordance with this resource consent; and e. includes representation from the contractors who will undertake the works. A pre-start meeting shall be held prior to the commencement of the earthworks activity in each period between October 1 and April 30 that this consent is exercised. The following information shall be made available at the pre-start meeting: • Timeframes for key stages of the works authorised under this consent; 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 30 • Resource consent conditions; • Approved plans (referred to in Condition 1); • The Construction Management Plan (required by Condition 7). Advice Note: To arrange the pre-start meeting required by the condition above, please contact the Council’s Development Engineering Team, Southern Monitoring (deveng.south@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz), (monitoring@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) and Watercare Services Limited Development Team (inspections@water.co.nz). All additional information required by the Council should be provided 2 days prior to the meeting. The conditions of consent will be discussed at this meeting. The meeting shall also discuss the erosion and sediment control measures, methodology and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent. Erosion and Sediment Control 9. Prior to earthworks commencing, a certificate signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced engineer shall be submitted to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South, to certify that the erosion and sediment controls have been constructed in accordance with Council Standard GD05. Certified controls shall include the silt fences and stabilised construction entrance. The certification for these measures shall be supplied immediately upon completion of their construction. Information supplied, if applicable, shall include: a. Contributing catchment area; b. Volume and dimensions of the structure; c. Position of inlets/outlets; and d. Stabilisation of the structure. Landscaping 10. Prior to the commencement of any works the consent holder shall submit a comprehensive mitigation landscaping plan (based on the landscape plans submitted with the application, provided by GreensceneNZ Limited - concept issue, dated 14 July 2017) to the Parks Consent Planning Team Leader for their approval. The plan shall include at least 43 specimen trees of 160L grade (or equivalent) and specifications for an establishment maintenance programme, to be implemented for a minimum of two years after planting. Pedestrian Pathways/Cycleway and Veranda 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 31 11. Prior to the lodgement of the building consent, the final drawings for the veranda shall be submitted to the Parks Consent Planning Team Leader for their approval. Advice Note: The canopy over the public walkway including any associated signage and fixtures is also subject to separate landowner approval. It is recommended that the consent holder liaise directly with Land Use Advisory team (permissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) to secure this approval, as part of compliance with this condition. 12. Prior to commencement of any works the final plan for the pathway (including construction materials) on the public open space land adjoining the northern boundary of the site shall be prepared and submitted for the approval of the Parks Consent Planning Team Leader. The final plan shall include a design for edge-protection along the boundary of the pathway with the marina. The documentation shall be prepared in accordance with the relevant Auckland Council Code of Practice or Specification. Advice Note: This will ensure that the final design has addressed matters including surface demarcation so the pathway is readily identifiable as public. The inclusion of edge protection in the final plan for construction is for the safety of the public using this shared pathway / cycleway and is at the sole discretion of Auckland Council as the owner of the pathway. Works within the open space zone is subject to separate landowner approval. It is recommended that the consent holder liaise directly with parks permissions staff (permissions@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) to secure this approval, as part of compliance with this condition. 13. Prior to commencement of any works, the final plan (including construction materials and integration detail for connections with the shared pedestrian/cycleway pathway network on the opposite side of Jack Lachlan Drive) for the shared pedestrian/cycleway pathway on the southern side of the stream shall be prepared and submitted for the approval of Parks Consent Planning Team Leader. The pathway shall be a minimum of 3m in width. The documentation shall be prepared in accordance with the relevant Auckland Council Code of Practice or Specification. Advice Note: For conditions 11 to 13, it is recommended that the consent holder liaises with Parks staff before finalising the documentation to achieve an acceptable outcome prior to submitting it for approval. Access/Carpark Layout and Management 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 32 14. Prior to commencement of any works, the consent holder shall submit a final access/carpark layout and management plan to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South for approval. The plan shall provide for the following details: (a) Details of the materials, surface treatments and markings to be used to identify the private road through the site, the carpark manoeuvring areas to the south of the buildings, and the pedestrian crossings over the private road to the carparking areas on the south of the accessway. Construction of the three footpaths that extend across the private road shall be raised to encourage the reduction of vehicle speeds whilst providing for both bus and vehicles towing trailers; Advice Note: The purpose of this requirement is to ensure a safe, low speed traffic environment for all users, and to identify safe pedestrian pathways through the site to the marina. (b) Details of carparking marking and signage to identify that the carparks numbered 14 to 45 on the southern side of the private road identified on plan RC101[14] are available only for use by berth licence holders at the marina; and that car parks 14 – 17 and 24 – 29 are marked as either P20 or P40 for the loading and unloading of gear by berth licence holders. The plan shall provide for an increased length to these car parks (to the extent that is practicable) to provide safe space for the loading and unloading of gear from cars in these spaces that is clear of the accessway though the site; Advice Note: The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the 28 carparks specified are provided and managed for the benefit of marina berth licence holders only. (c) Details of the location and design of no less than three further trolley storage bays and one rubbish facility to be located adjacent to car parks 14 -17 and 24 -29. Advice Note: The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that there are trolley and rubbish facilities conveniently located adjacent to these berth holder car parks. Development in Progress Conditions Vegetation Removal and Protection 15. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the report ‘Arboricultural Assessment – Pine Harbour Marina, Beachlands’ provided by Jack Warden of GreensceneNZ Limited, dated 14 July 2017 and in particular Sections 6 and 7 of that report. A copy of the referenced report shall be kept on site at all times. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 33 16. Qualified arborists/tree surgeons shall carry out the approved tree removals in accordance with accepted good arboricultural practice to ensure no adjacent vegetation to be retained is damaged. 17. Any works within the root zones of trees to be retained on adjacent public land shall comply with the standards set out in Section E16.6.2 of the AUP(OP). 18. Should for any reason the veranda over the public open space zoned land not be provided, the removal of the 22 Bungalow Palm trees within the public open space walkway along the northern edge of the site (required to accommodate the verandas over the walkway) shall not proceed. Engineering Plans 19. The works detailed on the approved plans shall be constructed to the satisfaction of, and at no cost to, the Council and are subject to the following requirements: a. All materials, workmanship and testing shall be in accordance with Council’s current Engineering Standards or any subsequent replacement documents. b. All works on the existing public wastewater mains shall be carried out by a Watercare Services Limited approved licensed contractor at the consent holder's expense. c. All approved construction work, shall be supervised by an engineering representative, appointed by the owner (refer to Council’s current Engineering Standards). d. All works on the existing public stormwater network shall be carried out by a suitably qualified contractor, at the consent holder's expense. Land Stability/Flood Walls 20. The proposed earthworks and flood wall works shall be undertaken as indicated in the approved engineering drawings and also in a manner which ensures that the land within the site, and on adjoining properties, remains stable at all times. In this regard: a. The consent holder shall employ a CPEng qualified Engineer, Registered Professional Surveyor or other suitably qualified person acceptable to Council to investigate, direct and supervise all construction works, particularly in close proximity to neighbouring properties and the stream to ensure that an appropriate design and construction methodology is carried out to maintain the short and long term stability of the site and its surrounds. b. Any retaining walls and/or temporary stabilising works shall be constructed in a timely manner under engineering supervision. The consent holder shall ensure that all necessary design/approvals for retaining walls are 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 34 obtained and that sufficient resources are available to construct the required retaining walls, as directed by the engineer, prior to commencement of any significant excavation works. c. The consent holder shall investigate and if appropriate design and construct a flap on the stormwater pipe discharging to the southern drain to prevent surcharge through the pipe in flood conditions. d. All works shall be undertaken in a manner that does not create an adverse effect on neighbouring properties due to vibration. e. A geotechnical completion report shall be submitted to the Council within 1 month of the completion of the earthworks that: i. Confirms the suitability of the completed works; ii. Includes advice of any ongoing maintenance requirements, if any; and iii. Either: • • 21. Includes advice of any other recommendations necessary for the continued stability of the site or surrounds; OR Readdresses the recommendations included in the previous geotechnical reports for the site and provides further amendments and recommendations as necessary. The proposed flood wall shall be constructed prior to the occupation or commencement of any activity within the buildings authorised by this consent. General sediment control conditions 22. All earthworks shall be managed to ensure that no debris, soil, silt, sediment or sediment-laden water is discharged in an uncontrolled manner beyond the subject site to either land, stormwater drainage systems, watercourses or receiving waters. In the event that an uncontrolled discharge occurs, works shall cease immediately and the discharge shall be mitigated and/or rectified to the satisfaction of the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South. 23. There shall be no deposition of earth, mud, dirt or other debris on any road or footpath resulting from the earthworks activity on the subject site. In the event that such deposition does occur, it shall immediately be removed. In no instance shall roads or footpaths be washed down with water without appropriate erosion and sediment control measures in place to prevent contamination of the stormwater drainage system, watercourses or receiving waters. Advice Note: In order to prevent sediment laden water entering waterways from the road, the following methods may be adopted to prevent or address discharges should they occur: 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 35 • provision of wheel wash facilities; • cleaning of road surfaces using street-sweepers; • silt and sediment traps; or, • catchpits or enviropods. In no circumstances should the washing of deposited materials into drains be advised or otherwise condoned. It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who may be able to provide further guidance on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Council Publication GD05. 24. The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control measures specifically required by the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (referred to in Condition 1) shall be maintained throughout the duration of the earthworks activity, or until the site is permanently stabilised against erosion. 25. The use of noise generating motorised equipment and vehicles associated with all earthworks and construction activities on the subject site shall be restricted to between the hours 7am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday inclusive. There shall be no operation of noise-generating, motorised equipment and vehicles associated with the activity on the subject site on Sundays or Public Holidays. 26. Upon abandonment or completion of the earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South. Advice Note: Should the earthworks be completed or abandoned, bare areas of earth shall be permanently stabilised against erosion. Measures may include: • the use of mulching; • top-soiling, grassing and mulching of otherwise bare areas of earth; or, • aggregate or vegetative cover that has obtained a density of more than 80% of a normal pasture sward. The on-going monitoring of these measures is the responsibility of the consent holder. It is recommended that you discuss any potential measures with the Council’s monitoring officer who will guide you on the most appropriate approach to take. Please contact the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South at monitoring@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz or 09 301 0101 for more details. Alternatively, please refer to Auckland Council Publication GD05. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 36 Access and Parking 27. The private way, pedestrian walkways, carparks and manoeuvring areas shall be constructed, sealed, marked and drained (with stormwater control) as shown on the approved plans under Condition 1 and in compliance with the Council’s current Engineering Standards or any subsequent replacement documents as are applicable for private access and parking. Centreline marking shall be provided within the private way adjacent to the four buildings. 28. All four accessible parking spaces shall be identified and marked in accordance with New Zealand Standards NZS4121-2001. 29. All bike parking for short stay and long stay secure parking shall be provided in accordance with Australian Standards AS/NZS 2890.3-1993, Parking Facilities Part 3 – Bicycle Parking Facilities. 30. The following shall be constructed in accordance with ATCOP Standards and the approved plans: a. All footpaths; and, b. All new pram crossings shall be installed as drawing R8. Pram crossings shall be finished complete with tactile pavers. 31. Lighting (including security lights) shall be provided for all driveways, parking areas and pedestrian linkages. Lighting shall be designed in accordance with Rule E24.6 of the Auckland Unitary Plan and shall be maintained in good working order at all times. A professional electrical engineer shall certify the lighting plan. 32. Prior to Auckland Transport providing a regular service to link with the Pine Harbour ferry the bus stops shown on the approved plans shall be marked and signs posted in accordance with ATCOP Standards. Power and Telecommunication Servicing 33. Power and telecommunication services shall be installed underground within the private way to provide suitably located service connections to each building/tenancy. The services shall be satisfactorily located, within the property. Ducts may alternatively be installed (to the service provider’s specifications) to allow for future power and telecommunication cable installation. Fire fighting 34. The consent holder shall provide and install fire hydrants adjacent to the private road for firefighting purposes. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 37 Survey Certification 35. No building works shall proceed beyond the foundations stage until a registered surveyor or licensed cadastral surveyor, engaged by the consent holder, has provided written certification to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South that: a. The works completed are wholly contained within Lot 1 DP 489019, in accordance with the approved plans referred to in condition 1; b. The finished level of the ground floor will be at least 2.6m RL; c. The finished level of the carparks will be at least 3.0m RL; and d. The finished floor level of the residential apartments will be no less than 3.94m RL. Landscaping 36. Within the planting season (April to September) immediately following the completion of work on the site, the applicant shall carry out an appropriate replacement planting program in accordance with a plan approved under condition 10. 37. Any replacement planting shall be carried out in accordance with correct arboricultural practices in locations that provide for long-term growth and development. 38. The consent holder shall supply a completion memorandum to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South (monitoring@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) upon completion of all works on site. This memorandum shall include confirmation of the number, size, species and location of all replacement planting. Post Development Conditions 39. Conditions 7 to 35 and 40 to 50 shall be completed prior to the commencement of any activities within the buildings authorised by this consent, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South. Acoustic Treatment for Residential Units 40. Prior to the occupation of any residential unit, the consent holder shall provide to the satisfaction of the Council, a report from a suitably qualified and experienced expert confirming that the following requirements have been met: a. Any room normally used for sleeping within any residential unit must be designed and constructed so that the internal noise level in those rooms does not exceed 35dB LAeq between the hours of 10pm and 7am; and 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 38 b. Any other habitable room within any apartment unit must be designed and constructed so that the internal noise level in those rooms does not exceed 40dB LAeq at all times. In determining compliance with this condition, the noise level incident on the facades of the affected apartments shall be assumed to be 60dB LAeq at all times. 41. Where a new room is constructed that is subject to condition 40 and the noise limit in that condition can only be complied with when external doors or windows to those rooms are closed, those rooms must, as a minimum: a. Be mechanically ventilated and/or cooled to achieve an internal temperature no greater than 25°C based on external design conditions of dry bulb 25.1°C and wet bulb 20.1°C. Mechanical cooling must be provided for all habitable rooms (excluding bedrooms) provided that at least one mechanical cooling system shall service every level of an apartment unit that contains a habitable room (including bedrooms); or b. Provide a high volume of outdoor air supply at a rate of no less than: i. 6 air changes per hour for rooms with less than 30% of the facade area glazed; ii. 15 air changes per hour for rooms with greater than 30% of the facade area glazed; iii. 3 air changes per hour for rooms with facades only facing south (between 120 degrees and 240 degrees) or where the glazing in the façade is not subject to any direct sunlight. In addition: c. All habitable rooms shall be provided with relief for equivalent volumes of spill air; and Mechanical ventilation and / or cooling systems must be individually controllable across the range of airflows and temperatures by the building occupants in the case of each system. Survey Certification 42. At the completion of building works, and prior to the commencement of any activities within the buildings authorised by this consent, a registered surveyor or licensed cadastral surveyor, engaged by the consent holder, shall provide written certification to the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South that all parts of the building (other than the consented overhanging verandas) are wholly contained within Lot 1 DP 489019, in accordance with the approved plans referred to in condition 1. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 39 Easements 43. Prior to the commencement of any activities within the buildings authorised by this consent, the consent holder shall submit a survey plan and easement schedule for the approval of the Team Leader - Compliance Monitoring South for the following: a. An easement in gross for a right of way over a contiguous 3m wide strip of land on the southern side of the stream in favour of the Council for the purpose of allowing public access over the site in respect of the shared pedestrian/cycleway required and approved by condition 13. b. An easement in gross between Buildings 1 and 2, Buildings 2 and 3 and Buildings 3 and 4 as shown on the Plan titled 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Pine Harbour, Site Plan – Proposed Building and Carparks, referenced RC101[14] prepared by PB&A Architects, dated 2 May 2018 in favour of the Council, for the purpose of allowing public access through the site from the vehicle accessway on the southern side of the buildings to the public walkway along the edge of the marina. c. An easement in gross for a right of way, for the remainder of the width of the private accessway and adjacent carparks and footpath, not covered by the existing easement B (Transfer C060768.16), in favour of the Council, for the purpose of allowing public access through the site. d. An easement in gross to an electricity easement for cable access and supply purposes in favour of Vector, for the relocated cabinetry. 44. The consent holder shall meet the cost in relation to the preparation, review and registration of all easement instruments on the Certificate(s) of Title required by condition 43. 45. The easements required by Condition 43 shall be registered prior to any commencement of commercial/retail or any other activities (including residential uses) within any building approved by this consent. Reverse Sensitivity 46. Prior to occupation of any of the apartments, the consent holder shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring South that protection of the marina and its operations from potential reverse sensitivity complaints or actions has been secured by way of a Memorandum of Encumbrance in the form included with the application on the titles to the apartments so that they are ongoing obligations that bind the owners of the apartments and their successors on an ongoing basis. Advice Note: The purpose of this condition is to ensure that the owners and occupiers of the apartments understand and acknowledge that they are living adjacent to a 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 40 working marina which may affect their amenity from time to time, but they are unable to take steps to prevent or frustrate the continued operation of the marina. “As-built” Plans 47. At the completion of works, certifications and “as-built” plans of all new public assets shall be vested in the Council (including associated documentation) shall be provided to the satisfaction of Council's Team Leader - Development Engineering (South) or Council’s Team Leader - Compliance Monitoring South and shall be in accordance with: a. The conditions of the Resource Consent and any further Engineering Plan approval; b. Auckland Council’s Engineering Quality Assurance Manual; c. Auckland Council’s current Engineering Standards; 48. The consent holder shall supply Completion / Provisioning certificates for the power and telephone services from the utility service providers, and certified “asbuilt” plans giving locations of all plinths, cables and ducts. 49. The consent holder shall provide to the Parks Consents Planning Team Leader as built plans for hard landscaping within the public walkway in CAD and PDF format including the following details: a. Asset names. b. All finished hard landscape asset locations and type. Flood Assessment Report 50. The consent holder must provide a final/post flood assessment report from a qualified Registered Engineer to the satisfaction of the Council's Team Leader Development Engineering (South) identifying: a. The 1% AEP flood level for the site, accessway and carparks; and b. The overland flowpath plan shall include as-built cross sections of the flood wall and access way plus any areas identified as ponding areas with levels before overtopping. This report shall confirm that the flood wall is constructed in accordance with the approved engineering plans. Any changes from the approved levels may be varied subject to the consent holder’s engineer demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Team Leader – Development Engineering (South) that the amended levels are in general accordance with the original flood protection design proposed and meet the requirements of the AUP and the associated engineering performance standards. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 41 Commercial Activities 51. Commercial activities undertaken within the proposed ground floor of buildings shall be limited to: a. Food and beverage activities, on the ground floor only; b. Marine retail activities, on the ground floor only; c. A single dairy, on the ground floor only and no greater than 150 m2 in gross floor area and d. Any other permitted activity listed in Activity Table I431.4.3. Advice Note: No other retail or commercial service activities are authorised by this land use consent. This condition does not prevent any application for approval of further land use consent to establish other commercial activities within the buildings subject to this resource consent. 52. The noise from any commercial or business activity sharing any common building element (walls or floors or other structural elements) with any residential unit shall not exceed the following limits when measured inside any bedroom or habitable room in any residential unit: a. 35dB LAeq, 45dB at 63 Hz Leq and 40dB at 125 Hz Leq between the hours of 10pm and 7am in all rooms normally used for sleeping; and b. 40dB LAeq in all other habitable rooms at all times. Parking Spaces 53. All parking spaces shall be managed reasonably to allow residents, staff and visitors to utilise this parking at all times. 54. Parking and manoeuvring aisles shall be kept clear at all times. 55. The four stacked parking spaces within Building 1 (spaces 1, 2, 3 and 8) shall be exclusively used as long-term parking spaces for residential activities in that building. In addition: a. Parking spaces 1 and 12 shall be allocated for exclusive use by the same tenancy; b. Parking spaces 2 and 11 shall be allocated for exclusive use by the same tenancy; c. Parking spaces 3 and 10 shall be allocated for exclusive use by the same tenancy; and d. Parking spaces 8 and 9 shall be allocated for exclusive use by the same tenancy. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 42 Loading and Deliveries 56. Product deliveries and refuse / recycling collections to and from the commercial premises shall only be undertaken between the hours of 7am and 10pm from Monday to Saturday and between 9am and 6pm on Sundays. Rubbish Areas 57. Rubbish shall be stored within the designated areas at all times except when emptying. 58. Any outdoor rubbish storage area (associated with either the ground floor or upper floor uses) shall be screened from public view and to the satisfaction of the Team Leader – Compliance Monitoring South. Advice note: No screening of rubbish areas for public use is necessary. Road Naming 59. The consent holder shall provide and install road naming signs in accordance with the Council’s standards for private roads and private ways, (rights of way) that serve six or more residential units. The names shall be as approved by the council. Advice Note: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) requires that private roads and private ways (rights of way) that serve six (6) or more residential units are to be named. The consent holder should obtain evidence of acceptance from LINZ that the proposed names are not duplicated within the Auckland Council area before submitting the names to the Council for reporting to the relevant Local Board for approval. In giving its approval, the Local Board will have regard to the relevance of the road names to the locality, or determine that the names are otherwise appropriate. 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 43 Advice notes (i) Any reference to number of days within this decision refers to working days as defined in s2 of the RMA. (ii) For the purpose of compliance with the conditions of consent, “the council” refers to the council’s monitoring inspector unless otherwise specified. Please contact monitoring@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz to identify your allocated officer. (iii) For more information on the resource consent process with Auckland Council see the council’s website www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. General information on resource consents, including making an application to vary or cancel consent conditions can be found on the Ministry for the Environment’s website: www.mfe.govt.nz. (iv) If you disagree with any of the above conditions, or disagree with the additional charges relating to the processing of the application, you have a right of objection pursuant to sections 357A or 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991. Any objection must be made in writing to the council within 15 working days of notification of the decision. (v) The consent holder is responsible for obtaining all other necessary consents, permits, and licences, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Philip Brown Chairperson 7 June 2018 190 Jack Lachlan Drive, Beachlands LUC No.: LUC60305157 44