Report / Decision on a Non-notified Resource Consent Application (Sections 95A / 95B and 104 / 104B)

Transcription

1 Resource Management Act 1991 Report / Decision on a Non-notified Resource Consent Application (Sections 95A / 95B and 104 / 104B) Application Number: Applicant: Site address: Legal Description: City Plan Zoning: Activity Status: Description of Application: RMA Ngai Tahu Property Limited c/- Resource Management Group Ltd 46 Lower Styx Road (Prestons Subdivision Site) Proposed Lots (inclusive) being a subdivision of Lots 1 & 2 DP 6532 Living G (Prestons) Discretionary Reduction in Setback from Rural boundary on Five Residential Allotments Introduction The application proposes to reduce the required 15 metre setback on five allotments approved under RMA which was granted on a non-notified basis by the Resource Management Officer Subcommittee on 4 July 2012 (and subsequently amended pursuant to sections 133A and 357 on 25 July and 24 August 2012 respectively). That consent was granted for a 400 lot greenfield residential subdivision with associated roading, stormwater and other infrastructure and reserves. On 27 October 2011, the Council adopted the recommendation of the PC30 Hearings Commissioners to approve Plan Change 30 (PC30) to the operative Christchurch City Plan (the City Plan ). The Canterbury earthquake Recovery Authority ( CERA ) then incorporated PC30 into the operative City Plan pursuant to s27 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act on 1 November When fully developed the Living G Prestons (LGP) zone is to contain a minimum of 2200 residential allotments, along with commercial areas, a school site and associated reserves and linear stormwater treatment and attenuation corridor. The Prestons development is located in the north eastern corner of Christchurch. The total Living G (Prestons) Zone area compromises approximately 205ha, bound by Mairehau Road to the south and Lower Styx Road to the north. This application relates to land on the Ngai Tahu Property owned portion of the Prestons site - and is wholly to the north of Prestons Road. The five allotments ( ) that are the subject of this consent are shown clearly on the site plan in the application, a snapshot of which is reproduced below: 1 of 11

2 The image above also shows clearly the two adjoining sites; Lot 1 DP 3184 (478 Marshland Road) to the west is zoned Rural 3, while Lot 2 DP (468 Marshland Road) to the south is zoned Living G Prestons as is the subject site. The property at 468 Marshland Road is indicated in the ODP for the LGP zone as containing both Density C and D and is a continuation of the density bandings as they are applied to the subject site. The five allotments in question are density band C rather than the density band D allotments indicated in this location by the Outline Development Plan (ODP) for the LGP zone. At the time the subdivision was approved it was noted that the allotments being density C may require specific attention in terms of dwelling design in order to be able to comply with the required setbacks, it was also noted that the consent holder anticipated lodging a separate consent to deal with this matter, hence the current application. The application document details the process through Plan Change 30 that brought the LGP package of objectives, policies and rules into the City Plan in section 2. I have visited the site in order to ascertain the current situation with respect to land use pattern on land adjoining the five proposed dwelling sites. 2 of 11

3 The image above shows the application site, and dwellings as they are located on adjoining sites. There is a further dwelling to the north west on the site at 512 Marshland Road that is visible at the top left of the image. The dwelling on 478 Marshland Road is in the order of 350 metres from the boundary with the subject site, with shelter planting intervening. This is evident in the image below taken on the site visit and looking west from the application site into 4798 Marshland Road. This image also shows the dwelling on 512 Marshland in the distance behind deciduous shelter / screening planting. 3 of 11

4 The next image below is taken from the subject site looking south into the site at 468 Marshland Road. I note that this site is within the LGP zone also. The dwelling on this site is approximately 140 metres distant from the boundary with the subject site. Planning Framework The Christchurch City Plan became operative in part on the 21st of November All rules applicable to this application are operative and therefore assessment is only required under the City Plan. The proposal falls to be considered as a discretionary activity. The site is zoned Living G (Prestons) under the City Plan. The City Plan states that the Living G (Prestons) Zone provides the ability and opportunity to comprehensively plan and develop a mixed density and mixed use suburban centre in north-east Christchurch. The zone allows for and maximises the need for integration of activities, infrastructure, open space and green ways both internally and with the adjoining communities including Burwood, Marshland, Belfast and Parklands. The development form is to be undertaken in accordance with an Outline Development Plan and a series of rules that are designed to ensure that a range of integrated outcomes are achieved. Outcomes include a range of residential densities, permeability in terms of all transport modes, a mix of uses and an urban environment responsive to the natural environment. Areas of Commercial land are located centrally within the zone with the purpose of accommodating local retail, business, civic and community/recreational activities. The Living G Zone is intended to provide the opportunity to consolidate and integrate existing and potential new community facilities. The development of the zone is prescriptive and directed by an outline development plan package made up of several separate plans contained as appendices to the Zone. These plans include: Appendix 3V/1 Outline Development Plan (Prestons); Appendix 3V/2 Density Layer Diagram (Prestons); Appendix 3V/3(i) - (iv) Movement Network Layer Diagrams; Appendix 3V/4 Blue Network Layer Diagram; Appendix 3V/5 Green Network Layer Diagram; Appendix 3V/6 Living G (Prestons) Planting List; Appendix 3V/7(v) Living G (Prestons) (external) Intersection Upgrades. 4 of 11

5 The Christchurch City Plan became operative in part on the 21 st of November All rules applicable to this application are operative and therefore assessment is only required under the City Plan. The site is zoned Living G Prestons under the City Plan and the proposal is to be assessed as a discretionary activity. The Plan anticipates this zone will be developed for mixed use and mixed density residential accommodation. This proposal fails to comply with the following provisions of the City Plan: Community Standard Setbacks and screening from neighbours residential and other activities - The following landscaping and setback provisions shall apply to the Living G (Prestons) site boundaries: (a) Living G (Prestons) Residential allotments / all Rural Zone Boundaries (excluding those areas identified in (d) and (e) below) (i) A minimum 15m building setback from the Rural Zone boundary. (ii) Prior to or concurrently with the construction of the first building on any allotment, a solidly clad boundary fence shall be erected, having a minimum height of 1.8 metres and a maximum height of 2.0 metres. The proposal is to reduce the setback to 5.0 metres; the solid fence is to be retained as a requirement. The existing environment The existing environment, LGP zoning of the subject site and the site adjoining to the south notwithstanding, can generally be described as a rural one. The sites to the west are occupied by reasonably intensive market gardening activity, while the Prestons site itself is generally in pasture, with the obvious beginnings of works to carry out the large scale residential development anticipated by the LGP zoning. The site immediately south, although included within the LGP zone, is currently a lifestyle block, the dwelling being substantially set back from the portion of the subject site that is to be occupied by the five dwellings proposed by this application. Has the applicant requested that the application be publicly notified? [Section 95A(2)(b)] No Pursuant to Sections 95A and 104(1), what are the adverse effects of the activity on the environment, and will they be minor? Pursuant to section 95B, who is adversely affected? As a discretionary activity the Council s assessment of the effects of actual and potential effects of the activity this proposal is unlimited and all matters may be considered. Notwithstanding this the core of the issue is one of the landscape characteristics of the receiving environment and the effects of the proposed reduced setback on these and associated amenity values. The relevant assessment matter provides a guide as to the effects that generally require assessment in relation to this standard, and is repeated below: Setbacks and screening from neighbours residential and other activities In the Living G (Prestons) zone, the extent to which any development is sympathetic to and appropriately addresses the interface with neighbouring zones including the adjacent rural area, the interface with Lower Styx Road/Styx River and Mairehau Road, and to the golf courses which border the zone. This is supported by the reason for the rule, which is also repeated below: Setback and screening from neighbours Living G Prestons (Zone) The Living G (Prestons) Zone includes specific building setbacks and landscaping provisions to manage the zone s interface with the various land uses along the zone boundary. These provisions also include specific controls on the size and transparency of site boundary fences. In the main, these fencing provisions seek to maintain visual amenity and passive surveillance between areas; however the rural land to the west of the Living G (Prestons) zone requires taller fences of solid construction to ensure rural amenity and mitigate against potential reverse sensitivity effects. 5 of 11

6 I consider, in light of the above that the effects requiring consideration in this instance are those on rural amenity for the adjoining sites, on the nature of the interface between the urban and the rural, and on any potential for an increase in reverse sensitivity to legitimate rural activity on sites to the west. The application contains an assessment of effects in sections , which refers also to Appendix Four the Rough and Milne Landscape Architect s report on the proposed setback reduction (I note that the landscape report covers all external zone boundary setbacks required under the LGP rules rather than the western rural interface only. I assume that in time consent applications to vary these other setbacks will be presented, however those matters are not considered here, this application relates solely to the five allotments indicated in the application Site Plan). I generally accept the assessment put forward by the applicant, and add additional discussion below. Firstly I consider that residential amenity for future occupants of the dwellings is not impacted by the proposal the allotments proposed are capable of containing dwellings and providing the usual amenity expected in terms of outdoor living space etc. the reduction in set back proposed will not alter this situation. The imposition of the rule requiring solid fencing has effectively, in my opinion, removed any connection between the residential properties and their rural neighbours. I note that similar close boarded fences of this height are commonly used to create noise and visual barriers where subdivision developments border busy roads, and increasingly in what might be considered rural subdivisions (although not necessarily within the area covered by the Christchurch City Plan) in Canterbury. An example of close boarded fencing like this is also obvious on the north eastern corner of the Queen Elizabeth II Drive and Marshland Road intersection. Recent upgrades to the intersection have seen new fencing installed on both the north eastern (close boarded) and north western (low, open, pool style ). The two treatments differ markedly in visual effect. The open style fence preserves a strong visual link between the roadside amenity planting and swale and the rural site beyond the fence. The close boarded fence is itself subject to treatment by way of amenity planting on the road side of the fence to improve a poor visual outcome. The close boarded fence severs, in my opinion, any visual linkage between the activities on either side. I consider that the fencing required by the City Plan provisions to be installed along the boundary of the LGP zone and the Rural 3 zoned land to the west will have a similar effect. There will be no visual link between the two zones and any landscaped buffer that might have had a softening and linking effect with the low visually permeable fence would be lost. A solid fence is an abrupt change in the landscape on the rural zoned side, and clearly demarcates a differing land use occurring on the other side and the end of the rural zone. It appears from excerpts of the Plan Change 30 Commissoners decision (excerpts included below as Appendix 1) that this was in fact the intent of the fence and that it was advocated for by submitters representing 15 of 21 landowners of land to the west of the now LGP zone, who were concerned at the impact of residential activities and easy access to their land for children and dogs that might be afforded by low, open style fencing. I note that the Commissioners decision on Plan Change 30 also included some discussion regarding the size of Density D lots (indicated by the ODP for this boundary) and retention of a 15 metre setback to provide an appropriate rural edge at the present time. As above, these allotments are density C and were swapped by the applicant in the phase 1 consent for subdivision on the LGP zone. The density D allotments indicated for this boundary will be created elsewhere in the development of further stages in order to maintain the required percentage split of the various density bands. The key thrust of this application is that with the removal of the requirement for the open planted landscape setback, and its replacement with a visually disruptive solid suburban fence type, the need for the additional 10 metre setback is also removed, and a 5 metre building setback is adequate to deal with the zone boundary. It is advanced in the landscape assessment that removal of this additional 10 metre setback will also afford owners of residential allotments on the LGP boundary more flexibility in dealing with their sites without creating an adverse effect on their rural neighbours. In this instance I agree with that assertion. I note as above that dwellings on adjoining sites are set well back from this boundary, and there is also intervening screening / shelter vegetation. I consider that when viewed from the location of nearby dwellings the reduction in setback will be visually indiscernible. From a closer viewpoint the dwellings on these sites will be obvious, but as noted the close boarded boundary fence will create an abrupt separation between rural and urban activity. I cannot see how an additional 10 metres of setback would make a real difference to this transition. I note that the balance of adjoining sites is undertaken in plainly rural production activity (in the case of 478 Marshland Road) or is also zoned LGP (in the case of 468 Marshland Road). 6 of 11

7 The required rural boundary setback might be argued to be principally for the benefit of the rural land adjoining the development site, but I note that there is also at least a temporary potential issue (and then possibly a more final situation regarding development of 468 Marshland Road under the LGP provisions) for the site to the south. In terms of present use it is difficult for me to see that an actual adverse effect might be created by the reduction of setback as it is proposed. Dwellings on both adjoining sites are setback by a large distance, and in the case of the LGP zoned site at 468 the intervening space is likely ultimately to be developed for a more intensive residential use (once roading connections are available from the main development on the Ngai Tahu Property owned land). The activity undertaken on both sites is low intensity, and in the case specifically of the land in production use at 478 Marshland Road is unlikely to be affected by a dwelling on any of the 5 allotments subject to this application regardless of the degree of setback created on each site. In terms of issues of reverse sensitivity I do not consider that the setback breach will create a situation of heightened sensitivity. Modern construction methods include double glazing and insulation and these will likely dampen any noise to reasonable levels. In any event the use of machinery on the rural land is permitted by the Plan and also will occur generally outside the hours of darkness (and falling into daytime noise periods set by the Plan although I note that farm machinery and farm vehicles are generally exempt from noise standards in Part 11 of Volume 3 of the Plan). I note particularly in respect of reverse sensitivity to rural land use that the setback required does not preclude the siting of outdoor living areas in proximity to the boundary, and it is likely that these outdoor uses might generate more potential for sensitivity to adjoining land use than occupancy of a building. In any event the occupants of these sites are free to further supplement landscaping along this boundary should they feel a need to buffer outdoor areas from rural activity on adjoining sites. In reality, and given that the setback proposed for reduction is on the western aspect of these sites, it is likely that dwelling design would look to take advantage of a relatively open north and west aspect to increase solar gain, and also provide accessible outdoor living areas that maximise exposure to sunlight. Thus the setback of buildings regardless of the 5 metre minimum proposed in this consent application might well be larger. Further, the application proposes that a part of the original landscaping requirement proposed in the Plan Change 30 documents is reintroduced by way of a condition requiring the planting of one tree per 40m 2 setback area. On these allotments this would equate to two trees for each site. The trees are to be from the list of large trees provided in Appendix 1 to the landscape report in the application. These trees are listed below: Exotic trees Acer davidii Fagus sylvatica 'Dawyck' Fraxinus excelsior 'Green Glow' Liquidambar styraciflua'worplesdon' Liriodendron tulipifera 'Fastigiatum' Platanus orientalis "Alfords Flame" Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Ulmus 'Frontier' Ulmus parvifolia Large Native Trees Dacrydium cupressinum Podocarpus totara Prumnopitys taxifolia Small Native Trees Dodonea viscosa Kunzea ericoides Leptospermum scoparium Plagianthus regius Sophora microphylla snakebark maple columnar green english beech english ash (select form) sweet gum columnar tulip tree oriental plane (select form) bradford pear hybrid elm chinese elm rimu totara matai akeake kanuka manuka manatu/lowland ribbonwood south island kowhai As the landscape report notes, these trees when mature (or at least semi mature), will provide some screening of dwellings within the LGP sites for adjoining rural landowners, and will contribute to general amenity and the marking of the zone boundary. I agree generally with this statement and consider that a requirement for the planting of trees should be imposed as a condition of consent. Given that the trees are large trees it is also appropriate, keeping their intended purpose in mind, that they are maintained in accordance with good arboricultural practice and are allowed to grow to their natural height without being topped. 7 of 11

8 I have discussed the contents of the tree list above with Council s arborist Dieter Steinegg particularly in respect of the suitability of these species within the proposed area that is 5 metres wide at minimum. Mr Steinegg recommends that the trees selected are deciduous (to limit winter shading given likely proximity of other residential use within the LGP zone) which would effectively remove the large native trees from consideration. I propose however that the lists of trees offered by the applicant are retained as options for future landowners. Retaining the full lists also allows choice of a larger tree should the setback on a particular site be greater than five metres. I note that in terms of the trees within the small natives list Plagianthus regius may be particularly suitable for the location. I note also that I have been approached by one of the neighbours of the LGP zone (albeit from a block at the northern end adjoining Lower Styx Road and some 500 metres from the site covered by this application) in respect of the setback issue. I do not consider that party to be affected by this proposal given the separation distance between the sites. A list of property owners concerned at setback reduction proposals was also supplied to me by this party, I note that none of those parties owns or occupies a site bordering the subject site (the 5 allotments approved under RMA ), consequently, and for the reasons above, I do not either consider them affected by the proposal. I consider, in light of the discussion above, that the adverse effects of the proposal on the environment are less than minor. I do not consider persons to be adversely affected by this proposal, nor do I consider that there will be any adverse effects on the wider environment. Despite the above, do any special circumstances exist in relation to this application which would lead you to conclude that the application should be publicly notified? If the answer is yes, why? [Section 95A(4)] No Who is considered to be adversely affected by the granting of this application? [Section 95E(1)] As discussed above I do not consider any party adversely affected by this proposal. Has written approval been obtained from every person who is considered to be adversely affected by the activity? [Section 95E(3)] Yes If the answer to the above question is no, is it unreasonable in the circumstances to seek the persons written approval? [Section 95E(3)(b)] N/A How do any relevant objectives, policies, rules or other provisions of the City/District Plan relate to the proposal? [Section 104(1)(b)] The application contains an assessment of the policy framework of the city Plan in relation to the proposed reduction in setback. As this assessment notes the Living G Prestons zone does not have specific objectives associated with it, but does have associated policies that seek to achieve the wider objectives in relation to peripheral urban growth and housing diversity. A number of policies relating to the green, blue and movement networks within the LGP zone I do not consider relevant to the application, as they cover matters dealt with by the subdivision consent around layout of infrastructural requirements. Objective 6.3 is proposed to be amended by PC61, which is presently on hold. The proposed amendment specifies that the objective should apply to greenfield growth areas as well as peripheral urban growth. Objective 6.3 is of relevance and seeks Peripheral urban development of a scale and character consistent with a primary emphasis on urban consolidation; which avoids, remedies or mitigates 8 of 11

9 adverse impacts on water, versatile soils, significant amenity values and other natural resources; and which makes efficient use of physical infrastructure. I consider that the proposal is aligned with is objective (although I note that these matters are generally dealt with at a rezoning stage, and that this has already occurred in this instance). Of the supporting policies the most relevant in my opinion is 6.3A.12 Rural-urban interface. This policy seeks to reinforce the consolidation of the urban area by: (a) improving the landscape quality of the rural-urban interface; (b) establishing a transition of low density housing, open space or esplanade reserves, adjacent to the urban boundary, particularly where no clear physical boundary to urban growth exists; and (c) encouraging the planting of suitably located trees on the urban-rural interface, to create a high standard of amenity, and to better define and improve the quality of the urban edge of the City. The policy goes on to discuss issue specifically related to harsh boundaries between the urban and the rural. As noted above I believe (and in that agree with the applicant s assessment of effects) that the boundary created by the required close boarded fence is a poor outcome and if anything is improved by the requirement for a planting of two large trees per residential site, and at least is not further worsened by this planting. As also noted above I consider that the setback in and of itself will do little to improve the boundary between the zones and uses. The other supporting policies to Objective 6.3A are not in my opinion directly relevant to the proposal. I note that policy 6.3B.1 is also relevant and seeks the creation of a new suburban neighbourhood which: establishes strong connections to existing residential communities. achieves a well connected and comprehensive movement network within the site which enables public transport routes and safe pedestrian and cycle movements. achieves a high quality public open space network by enhancement and modification of the existing overland storm water channel alignments to enable the integration of stormwater attenuation areas with public amenity areas. creates a high quality public open space, being the Green Network, with activated nodes for civic or community uses such as sporting, community clubs, picnic facilities, playing fields or playgrounds. at least 22% of the residential units to be of higher density (Density A Residential). High density residential areas shall be located so as they provide opportunities for residents to reside and work in areas which are wellserviced by retail, recreation, public transport and civic/community facilities. High density areas should be located within 500m of the following: A public transport route Public open 'green' space such as a playground, local park or The Domain (note - for the purposes of this Policy, 'public open green space' includes green links and linear parks but does not include roads) Activity centres, such as the Prestons Road Village or Commercial areas manages the rural urban interface through the use of appropriate landscaping treatments and building setback requirements. encourages residential activity in the Urban Village / Commercial area develops at a rate and in a manner that avoids adverse effects on the safe effective and efficient functioning of the transport network, whilst enabling new housing and commercial activity to be established in the Northeast of the City. I have highlighted in bold the relevant part of this policy, the others being generally achieved by the development as a whole. I consider, based on the discussion presented above that the intent of this policy is also met. I consider that objective 11.4 Adverse environmental effects and its associated policy seeking to ensure that the design and siting of development does not unduly compromise outlook, privacy and views of adjoining development, having regard to the character of the area and reasonable expectations for development is relevant and also satisfied by the proposal again for the reasons discussed above. I consider the proposal is generally consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Plan as it will not compromise either residential or rural amenity values. Is the application consistent with Part II of the Act, and are there any other matters which are relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application? [Section 104(1)(c)] Part II 9 of 11

10 I consider the proposal to be consistent with Part II matters in that the proposal will maintain the amenity of the surrounding environment, in accordance with Section 7(c) and 7(f) of the Resource Management Act Recovery Strategy The Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch (the Recovery Strategy) prepared by CERA under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act became operative on 1 June It is a statutory document that must be "read together with, and forms part of" other relevant legislation within the greater Christchurch area. The City and District Plans must not be interpreted or applied in a way that is inconsistent with the Recovery Strategy. Granting consent to this application is not considered to be inconsistent with the Recovery Strategy as it does not conflict with any of the identified goals or priorities for recovery. Are there any matters that have arisen in the assessment of this application that would indicate the application should have been publicly notified [Section 104(3)(d)] No. Recommendation: A. That the application be processed on a non-notified basis in accordance with Sections 95A - 95F of the Resource Management Act B. That for the above reasons the application be granted pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall proceed in accordance with the information and plans submitted with the application. The Approved Consent Documentation has been entered into Council records as RMA (32 pages). 2. That one tree shall be planted for each 40 square metres of area of setback from the rural boundary of each site. The trees to be planted shall be from the lists below, and shall be a minimum of 1.8 metes in height at the time of planting. Exotic trees Acer davidii Fagus sylvatica 'Dawyck' Fraxinus excelsior 'Green Glow' Liquidambar styraciflua'worplesdon' Liriodendron tulipifera 'Fastigiatum' Platanus orientalis "Alfords Flame" Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Ulmus 'Frontier' Ulmus parvifolia Large Native Trees Dacrydium cupressinum Podocarpus totara Prumnopitys taxifolia Small Native Trees Dodonea viscosa Kunzea ericoides Leptospermum scoparium Plagianthus regius Sophora microphylla snakebark maple columnar green english beech english ash (select form) sweet gum columnar tulip tree oriental plane (select form) bradford pear hybrid elm chinese elm rimu totara matai akeake kanuka manuka manatu/lowland ribbonwood south island kowhai 3. That the trees planted under condition 2. above shall be maintained in accordance with good arboricultural practice and shall be allowed to grow to their natural height. The trees shall not be topped. 4. Should the trees required under condition 2. die or become diseased or damaged such that they cannot fulfil their function as amenity and screening they shall be replaced with suitable specimens from the lists above. 10 of 11

11 Advice Notes: The Fixed Fee paid application when this application was lodged includes a monitoring fee to cover the cost of setting up a monitoring programme and carrying out a site inspection to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent. If further site inspections are required due to non-compliance with the conditions, additional time will be charged at an hourly rate of $113 (incl. GST). The Council will require payment of its administrative charges in relation to monitoring, as authorised by the provisions of section 36 of the Resource Management Act At present the monitoring charges include: (i) A monitoring fee of $108 to cover the cost of setting up a monitoring programme and carrying out a site inspection(s) to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent; and (ii) Time charged at an hourly rate of $113 (incl. GST) where additional monitoring is required. Reported and Recommended by: Sean Ward Senior Planner Date: 26 September 2012 Reviewed by: John Gibson Planning Administration Manager Date: 28 September 2012 Decision That the above recommendation be adopted for the reasons outlined in the report. Commissioner: Name: Robert Charles Nixon Signature: Date: 3 October of 11