135 hobson road, central auckland

+64 9 363 7858 www.civix.co.nz

Level 1, 87 Albert St, Auckland

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24/05/2019

135 HOBSON ROAD, CENTRAL AUCKLAND

LUC: RECLAD OF EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING

135 Hobson Street Resource Consent Application – May 2019

Page 3

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Overview of the Application .................................................................................................. 5

1.1.1 Property Details and AUP Notations.............................................................................. 5 1.2 Site Description ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Description of the Local Environment ................................................................................. 10

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Application Details ............................................................................................................... 10

3.0 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN ................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Reasons for Consent ............................................................................................................ 11

3.1.1 Business – City Centre Zone ........................................................................................ 11 3.1.2 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Area Overlay .............................................. 11

3.2 Overall Activity Status.......................................................................................................... 12

4.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING APPROVAL ....................................................................... 12 4.1 Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 .......................................................... 12 4.1 Conditions to be Amended .................................................................................................. 12

4.1.1 Condition 21 ................................................................................................................ 12

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 95A-D .................................. 13 5.1 Section 95A-D Assessment .................................................................................................. 13

5.1.1 Public Notification Assessment ................................................................................... 13 5.1.2 Permitted Baseline ...................................................................................................... 13 5.1.3 Character and Amenity Effects .................................................................................... 14 5.1.4 Scale and Intensity Effects ........................................................................................... 16

5.2 Other Effects ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Construction ................................................................................................................ 16

5.3 Sections 95A-D Conclusion .................................................................................................. 17

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 104(1)(A) ............................. 17

7.0 SECTION 104 – CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS ............................................................. 17 7.1 Auckland Unitary Plan: Objectives and Policies ................................................................... 17

7.1.1 Business – City Centre: Objectives and Policies ........................................................... 17 7.1.2 Volcanic Viewshafts: Objectives and Policies .............................................................. 19

7.2 Section 104(1)(C) ................................................................................................................. 21 7.3 Section 104D ....................................................................................................................... 21 7.4 Proposed Duration of Consent ............................................................................................ 22

8.0 PART 2 PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE RMA .................................................................. 22 8.1 Section 5 .............................................................................................................................. 22 8.2 Section 6 .............................................................................................................................. 22 8.3 Section 7 .............................................................................................................................. 22 8.4 Section 8 .............................................................................................................................. 22

9.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 23


Page 4

Appendices Appendix 1: Certificate of Title Appendix 2: Application Plans Appendix 3: Landscape Visual Assessment Appendix 4: Acoustic Report Appendix 5: Ventilation Statement Appendix 6: Resource Consent LUC80183261 Appendix 7: pre-Application Meeting Minutes

Document Control Record Document Issue No: Author: Reviewed By: Date: 01 Nick Mattison Duncan Ross 24.05.19


Page 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of the Application Body Corporate 348047 (the “applicant”) seeks resource consent to completely encapsulate existing balconies of the Imperial Garden Apartments using a curtain walling system at 135 Hobson Street, Auckland Central refer to Appendix 1 – Certificate of Title. This system will extend the buildings bulk, but will not change its height. The design and layout of the alterations to the building have been shown within Appendix 2 – Application Plans. A Visual Impact Assessment has been prepared by Greenwood and Associates and is included as Appendix 3. An Acoustic Report prepared by Hegley Acoustics is included within Appendix 4. A Ventilation Statement prepared by Jacksons is included within Appendix 5. As part of the underlying Resource Consent for the existing building (LUC80183261) there is a condition which restricts the building gross floor area to 12,762m2. As the remedial weathertight works will effectively increase the GFA (as a result of internalizing the existing balconies), this application also seeks a s127 variation to LUC80183261 to cancel this condition. A copy of this consent is included as Appendix 6. A copy of the Pre-Application Meeting Minutes are included within Appendix 7.

1.1.1 Property Details and AUP Notations

We note the following property details and Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) notations relevant to the proposal:

Table 1: Relevant Property Details and Notations

Site Address: 135 Hobson Street, Auckland CBD Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 3532390

Site Area: 2127m2 Relevant Plan: Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part 2016 Appeals: - Modification: - Zoning: Business City Centre Zone Precinct: -

Overlays: Natural Heritage: Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay [rcp/dp] – E10, Mount Eden, Viewshafts

Controls:

Controls: Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Urban Planning Overlay Map 1 – Precincts and Quarters Planning Overlay Map 2 – Activities Planning Overlay Map 3 – General Height Controls Planning Overlay Map 4 – Special Height Controls Planning Overlay Map 5 – Site Intensity Planning Overlay Map 6 – Designations, Heritage Items and Additional Limitations Planning Overlay Map 7 – Transportation Controls

Designations: - The application is described fully within this Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). The assessment demonstrates that the proposal satisfies the relevant Assessment Criteria of the


Page 6

AUP and that any adverse effects on the environment associated with this proposal are less than minor.

1.2 Site Description The property at No. 135 Hobson Street (refer Figure 1) is an irregular shaped allotment with a total area of 2,127m2.

Figure 1: Location of No. 135 Hobson Street (in blue)

The site is occupied bn the existing Imperial Gardens Apartments, which is a thirteen storey building with an L-shaped floor plate measuring approximately 35m wide overall in the North-South direction by approximately 70m long overall in the West-East direction. The building fronts Hobson Street, with the entrance to the building on the western side of Hobson Street. The existing building is 13 levels (including ground level) and has 2 basement carpark levels. The total number of residential apartments is 275 and there is a total of 3 commercial units on the ground floor facing Hobson Street. Basement level 2 contains parking and a mechanical room. Basement level 1 contains parking and the rubbish room. The car entrance to the basement levels is to the north via side lanes from either Hobson Street or Wellesley Street. The ground level contains 11 apartments with decks that access the Podium courtyard, 3 commercial units, a gymnasium, toilet/shower, spa pool room, mailboxes, various storage rooms and a building managers office. Ground level also contains a canopy over the pedestrian footpath running along the western side of Hobson Street. The podium is located within the arms of the ‘L’ shaped building on the ground level and extends out to the boundaries to the west and the north. Located to the northern boundary of the podium is an un-covered swimming pool. The swimming pool is installed above the podium and accessed by external steps. Adjacent to and forming part of the swimming pool structure are enclosed stairs which allow for access from the podium to the basement and side entrance to the basement car parking. Levels 1 – 12 contain apartments totaling 264 (22 per floor). Level 1 on the Hobson Street, east elevation, has 10 larger decks above the entry canopy. The remainder of the apartments


Page 7

have cantilevered concrete balconies numbering 254 in total that face Hobson Street to the east elevation and facing the podium space to the west and north elevations. Over the top level is a perimeter parapet with aluminum composite panel cap flashings and internal gutters with roof outlets. The roof is clad in Neuchatel asphaltic membrane. The general construction of the building is reinforced concrete frames (in-situ columns and precast beams), precast concrete shear walls with in-situ columns at the ends, pre-stressed hollow-core floors. The stairs are precast concrete. The façade is aluminum composite panel, precast concrete panel and aluminum joinery window and door systems. The entrance lobby, podium, balconies and pool areas are covered with a ceramic tile. The concrete balconies have aluminum framed balustrades with glass infills. Refer existing elevations below.

Photograph 1: Hobson Street View – Existing


Page 8

Photograph 2: Podium View – Existing

There are other similar sized buildings further up Hobson Street, which display a mixed architectural style however are predominantly, large precast concrete flat panels with small windows facing out onto Hobson Street


Page 9

Photograph 3: 147 Hobson Street

Photograph 4: 189 Hobson Street


Page 10

1.3 Description of the Local Environment The site is located within central Auckland, and is flanked by a hotel development to the north, which is of the same height, and a substantially lower, two level building to the south operated as a music shop. Opposite is a pharmacy and St Patrick’s Cathedral. There is on-street parking directly in front of the site, and a bus stop opposite. Overall, the sites location is atypical of the central city with a mixture of tall apartment developments, lower scale commercial activities, car parking and historic character buildings.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITY

2.1 Application Details The proposal in short is to re-clad the existing apartment building which suffers serious weathertight issues. To achieve this, the applicant proposes to completely encapsulate existing balconies using a curtain walling system. The curtain walling system will run from level 1 floor up to level 12 to the Western Elevation (Podium façade) and Northern Elevation (Podium façade) and from level 2 floor up to level 12 to Eastern Elevation (Hobson Street façade). The existing aluminium composite parapet cap flashing to the main roof will be replaced with a wider aluminium composite cap flashing to extend over the top of the curtain walling system. New aluminium composite panel and aluminium joinery is proposed to the ground floor walls of the Western Elevation (Podium façade) and Northern Elevation (Podium façade) and to the Level 1 walls to the Eastern Elevation (Hobson Street façade). Prior to this new work the existing balcony handrails, aluminium joinery, aluminium composite panel will be removed and disposed of offsite. The balconies with be infilled between and packed to match the apartment floor level with IT walls extended to increase the GFA area of the existing apartments. Other work proposed to the podium area is the complete removal of the existing tiles, screed and waterproofing to the concrete podium surface and replace with new screed and membrane with tiles, decking and artificial turf over. The design proposal is to activate the podium space to the apartment owners to make it a more desirable outdoor open space area with multiple uses. The Parapet Design ensures that the extended parapet does not further infringe the Volcanic Cone Viewshaft. The existing building infringes the viewshaft plane to some extent at the uppermost extreme. The new extension of the uppermost balconies is entirely within the extent (relative to the viewshaft) of the existing building and thus does not have any further impact on the viewshaft. An Acoustic Report was provided with the original Resource Consent application (LUC80183261). A copy of this report is included in Appendix 4 and all works will adhere to the requirements herewith. A Ventilation Assessment has been prepared by David Fothergill at Jacksons Engineering Advisers Ltd. A copy of this is included as Appendix 6. Currently the Resource Consent for the existing building (LUC80183261) has a condition stating the building gross floor area will not exceed 12,762m2. As the remedial weathertight works will effectively increase the GFA, this application also seeks a s127 variation to


Page 11

LUC80183261 to cancel this condition.

3.0 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN The AUP became operative in part on 15 November 2016 and was last updated on 30 May 2018. Council gave public notice to that affect under:

• section 160 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and; • clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

As such, the AUP provides a comprehensive District and Regional Planning framework for sites within Auckland, and previous Plan provisions have largely fallen away. Notwithstanding this, some parts of the AUP are excluded from being operative, including:

(a) Those parts that remain subject to Environment Court and High Court appeals under the LGATPA, and;

(b) The regional coastal plan component of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan requiring the Minister of Conservation approval of that part of the plan. This approval is required under section 152(3)(b) of the LGATPA and clause 18(3) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Council staff have provided directive in this regard and advised that where provisions are subject to an active appeal, it is necessary to consider the associated provisions of the previous planning documents and assess any resulting infringements accordingly. The site is zoned Business City Centre Zone under the AUP as identified within Part 1.1 of this AEE, and there are no site-specific appeals relating to this zoning. The following rules are triggered by the AUP and therefore require assessment.

3.1 Reasons for Consent

3.1.1 Business – City Centre Zone

A building that exceeds the basic floor area ratio specified for the site in Standard H8.6.10 Basic floor area ratio without providing a bonus feature is a Non Complying Activity under H8.4.1(A44). This includes the enclosure of the existing balconies as such increases GFA above the maximum limit. A building that exceeds the maximum total floor area ratio in Standard H8.6.21 Maximum total floor area ratio is a Non Complying Activity under H8.4.1(A45). This includes the enclosure of the existing balconies as such increases GFA above the maximum limit. Alterations and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for is a Restricted Discretionary Activity under H8.4.1(A36). This includes the proposed new curtain-walling to the existing building.

3.1.2 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Area Overlay

Buildings not otherwise provided for that do not comply with the standards under D14.6 is a Non Complying Activity under D14.4.1(A6). Of note, D14.5(1)(a) states any application for resource consent for a building not otherwise provided for that does not comply with the standards must be publicly notified.


Page 12

3.2 Overall Activity Status The application has an overall status of a Non Complying activity.

4.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING APPROVAL

4.1 Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 1991 states:

127 Change or cancellation of consent condition on application by consent holder (1) The holder of a resource consent may apply to a consent authority for a change or cancellation

of a condition of the consent, subject to the following: a) the holder of a subdivision consent must apply under this section for a change or

cancellation of the consent before the deposit of the survey plan (and must apply under section 221 for a variation or cancellation of a consent notice after the deposit of the survey plan); and

b) no holder of any consent may apply for a change or cancellation of a condition on the duration of the consent.

(2) [Repealed] (3) Sections 88 to 121 apply, with all necessary modifications, as if—

a) the application were an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity; and b) the references to a resource consent and to the activity were references only to the change

or cancellation of a condition and the effects of the change or cancellation respectively. (3A) If the resource consent is a coastal permit authorising aquaculture activities to be undertaken

in the coastal marine area, no aquaculture decision is required in respect of the application if the application is for a change or cancellation of a condition of the consent and does not relate to a condition that has been specified under section 186H(3) of the Fisheries Act 1996 as a condition that may not be changed or cancelled until the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries makes a further aquaculture decision.

(4) For the purposes of determining who is adversely affected by the change or cancellation, the consent authority must consider, in particular, every person who— a) made a submission on the original application; and b) may be affected by the change or cancellation.

The proposal has been prepared in accordance with the above provisions of the RMA and is within the scope of the underlying Resource Consent approval (LUC80183261), given that the activity and the scale of development remains the same. Overall, consent is required as a discretionary activity.

4.1 Conditions to be Amended The following conditions are proposed to be amended as follows:

4.1.1 Condition 21

The condition reads:

As the enclosure of the balconies will technically increase the GFA, it is proposed that this condition be deleted in its entirety.


Page 13

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 95A-D

5.1 Section 95A-D Assessment

5.1.1 Public Notification Assessment

Section 95A specifies the steps the council is to follow to determine whether an application is to be publicly notified. These steps are addressed in the statutory order below.

Step 1: mandatory public notification in certain circumstances

No mandatory notification is required as:

• the applicant has not requested that the application is publicly notified (s95A(3)(a)) • there are no outstanding or refused requests for further information (s95C and

s95A(3)(b)), and • the application does not involve any exchange of recreation reserve land under s15AA of

the Reserves Act 1977 (s95A(3)(c)). Step 2: if not required by step 1, public notification precluded in certain circumstances The application is not precluded from public notification as: • the activities are not subject to a rule or national environmental standard (NES) which

precludes public notification (s95A(5)(a)), and • the application does not involve one or more of the following activities exclusively: a

controlled activity; a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity for a residential activity (as defined in s95A of the RMA) or a subdivision; a boundary activity; or a prescribed activity (s95A(5)(b)).

Step 3: if not precluded by step 2, public notification required in certain circumstances

The application is required to be publicly notified as the activities are subject to rule D14.5(1)(b) that requires public notification (s95A(8)(a)).

Step 4: public notification in special circumstances

The application has to be publicly notified as a result of step 3, accordingly no additional assessment of special circumstances under (s95A(9)) is required.

The following assessment addresses the adverse effects of the activity on the environment, as public notification is required if the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor (s95A(8)(b)).

5.1.2 Permitted Baseline

The permitted baseline refers to the effects of permitted activities on the site and can be used to either disregard or compare the scale of effects associated with the proposal, to that of a permitted activity. In this instance, the area of the site is already established and operating as a multi-story residential apartment building which marginally intrudes into the viewshaft overlay. This consent seeks only to extend the building bulk by encapsulating the existing balconies using a curtain walling system. The overall height of the building within the viewshaft will not be altered.


Page 14

5.1.3 Character and Amenity Effects

A Landscape and Visual Impacts Assessment has been prepared by Greenwood Associates. The current building is an ‘L’ shaped thirteen-storied building on a square lot bordering Hobson Street on the eastern edge. The design of this building ties well into the natural character of the site, given that the urban framework has removed all natural character of the site. The street frontage is consistent with the street treatment, with retail on the ground level frontage and a canopy extending over the pedestrian footpath. The cantilevered balconies are not an uncommon treatment and can be identified in several residential apartments within the Auckland city area, however, as set out in the visual impact assessment these can be perceived as an informal façade to the public audience. The specimen trees along the street offer significant canopy screening to the apartments and further reduce the scale of the existing façade treatment. The western façade of the building can be difficult to see from the public eye due to the topographical variation in the area. The rear courtyard is not visible at all to the common public visual catchment. The proposal seeks to enclose the current façade and balconies on the western, northern and eastern elevation, using a curtain wall system. The façade will extend from level one to the twelfth floor on the western and northern elevations and from level two to the twelfth on the eastern façade (Hobson Street). The proposal will not change the façade of the ground floor on the Hobson Street frontage. Slight adjustments will be made to the roof flashing in order to accommodate the new curtain wall system; this however will not affect the height of the current building. The façade design consists of two varying panels installed. Façade 01 is a white powder-coated aluminum framing with varying sized rectangular double glazed windows. The façade will be further broken up by varying louvers and solid panels to infill the space between windows. The façade will also be fitted with frameless glass balustrade with a sliding panel to enable ventilation. Façade 02 is a charcoal powder-coated aluminum framing with varied sized double glazed windows. Varying louvers and solid charcoal panels will break up the façade. Panels of red and yellow will also be distributed throughout this façade treatment to further break up the building mass, whilst providing an aesthetically interesting façade. The façade will also be fitted with frameless glass balustrade with a sliding panel to enable ventilation. All glass used on the facades comply with the glare requirements specified within the AUP. Other works during this proposal include the development of the podium courtyard on the western side of the building. Current materials will be removed and replaced with updated waterproofing, adding decking and artificial turf. Of note there will be no external effects created as the only visual impact created is from residents within the apartments. Overall, as summarised by Greenwood Associates – “the proposal seeks to develop an existing façade treatment to a building to increase the usability of the building, whilst modernising its appearance to the surrounding viewing audience. Reviewing the architectural package it is evident that significant consideration has gone into the design of façade and how to minimise the effects produced. The alternating treatment breaks up the mass of the built form in order to reduce the imposingness of the high-rise on public. The minimisation of change to the building height further reduces the effects caused to the volcanic viewshaft and ensures that site lines to Mt Eden are maintained. Removing the balconies creates a more consistent façade to the building faces and therefore ties in with the surrounding urban fabric of Hobson Street and the Auckland Central Area. The modernisation of the building façade also ties in with the surrounding built from; providing a modern architectural built form”.


Page 15

In terms of landscape character, the level of sensitivity to change to the site is very low. The proposals consideration for the natural/urban character of the site represents an appropriate design solution, which is well integrated with the surrounding context. The materiality chosen modernizes the building to further note the evolving context of Auckland City. As a result the overall level of effects on the current landscape character of the site and wider Auckland area is a low adverse or less than minor change that is considered to be acceptable. A detailed viewpoint assessment has been prepared by Greenwood Associates. The first viewpoint is taken from the corner of Wellesley Street W and Hobson Street looking south and viewpoint two is taken from the corner of Cook Street and Hobson Street looking north. These viewpoints were chosen, as they are a common viewpoint for pedestrians walking on Hobson Street. As this is the closest proximity the building façade encroaches to public street edge, it is the more impacting façade of the building faces. Pedestrians on the western side of Hobson Street will experience very little difference as the works is located from level 1 upwards and the canopy above largely prevents visual access. Several large Liquidambars are planted along the streetscape, screening approximately four stories of the proposal. The current balconies are utilised as personal storage areas for each unit and several personal items create a cluttered façade appearance. The curtain wall treatment will remove this from view, creating a more consistent and formal façade treatment. This viewpoint will undoubtedly have significant catchment of viewers and will experience a moderate level change to the character of the building façade. The proposed design will formalise the overall appearance of the building, creating a positive effect on the viewing audience. The screening provided by the streetscape planting significantly screens the viewing ability of the audience. It is the combination of these factors and the quality of the design that formulates overall a low to minor effect to the viewer. The third viewpoint is taken from Nelson Street looking east. This viewpoint will have a moderate number of viewing audiences. Due to the topographical difference and the setback of the proposal reduces the visual encroachment. Similar to the Hobson Street façade the balconies are currently used as personal storage areas and a cluttered look is visible. The proposal seeks to enclose these areas with a modern and stylish façade treatment. The enclosing of the balconies will significantly increase the visual amenity of the building from this angle, creating a positive effect to the character of the area. It is the combination of viewing audience and significant improvement to the formality of the façade that sees a low minor effect to the visual audience. The last viewpoint is taken from the pedestrian underpass (view within the E10 Mt Eden viewshaft) looking southeast. This viewpoint was chosen, as it is part of the volcanic viewshaft to sight Mt Eden. The proposal does not seek to increase the height of the building and therefore the current areas of visibility to Mt Eden have not been affected. The northern façade of the western arm of the current building will be visible from this viewpoint, however due to the distance of the viewpoint the proposal will be seen against the heavily developed mosaic of Auckland City. The proposed design will integrate effectively with the increasingly common modern facades that are within the city. This viewpoint will have a low viewing audience within the pedestrian realm and the drivers along State Highway 1 will not be affected due to the travelling speeds through the visual catchment. The modern aesthetic of the proposal will integrate successfully with the built form and whilst not encroaching further into the viewshaft of Mt Eden (from a height perspective). These factors combined create a very low or less than minor effect to the viewing audience. In summary, the existing building is considered to be of low amenity value to the Auckland urban context, as the current façade creates an informal and cluttered appearance to the


Page 16

surrounding public audience. The consideration of the proposed design breaks down the building mass into several vertical panels, such that the building will not read as one continuous mass from close and afar viewpoints. The current building is already encroaching on the height limit within the viewshaft and the proposal does not seek to encroach any further into the viewshaft and therefore has the same visual impact on Mt Eden. The visual effects as concluded by Greenwood Associates would be no greater than very low or less than minor. Once the proposal is completed it will be viewed, as a continuation of the urban framework of Auckland City, and the writer concurs with the conclusions raised by Greenwood Associates that the actual or potential landscape and visual effects will be less than minor and have a positive effect to the character of the site.

5.1.4 Scale and Intensity Effects

Due to the enclosing of the balconies with the proposed curtain wall system, the floor area will increase per apartment. The current increase results in an area of 1509.58m2 that will be non-compliant. Across the entire building the increase is roughly 152.8m2 per level for a total of twelve floors. This is why it is proposed to delete condition 21 of the underlying land use consent. There is no ability to further develop or extend the building and in this regard a limit on GFA is not required as any further variation would require resource consent. The current balconies have been used as a series of storage units for the individual users, with collections of personal washing, bikes, bbq and other items that create a negative and cluttered appearance for the buildings. This is common throughout the building and is visible from several viewpoints. While the balconies were not counted as GFA under the Auckland City District Plan they do add mass and bulk to the building and their enclosure is considered a positive for their functionality and how the building reads to the public realm. The proposal to enclose these spaces will not, from a practical sense, increase the usable area of each apartment, rather an outdoor amenity area will become an indoor area, similar to enclosing a deck to a conservatory, noting these spaces will likely continued to be used for storage/washing etc. The overall function of the apartments and their livability will be enhanced due to the weathertightness being achieved. However the proposal will not increase the capacity of the apartments, i.e. no more persons will be able to reside within the apartment such that on average the overall residential intensity of the apartments will not be increased. There will be no additional demand on services, parking or traffic generation and on this basis any scale and intensity effects will be less than minor in degree.

5.2 Other Effects

5.2.1 Construction

Construction effects are temporary in duration and therefore unless there are extraordinary circumstances the effect is less than minor. We perceive no exceptional circumstances in regard to construction at this site. In addition, standard conditions of consent can be introduced to control the hours of construction, noise, dust, vibration, and vehicle movements, to ensure that there is no nuisance caused to the wider public or nearby construction activity, noting that the adjoining sites to the west are currently vacant and therefore likely to also be developed in the future. The area proposed for development is already in hardstand and no specific earthworks will be required.


Page 17

5.3 Sections 95A-D Conclusion

In summary, having undertaken the s95A public notification tests, as set out above, the following conclusions are reached:

• Under step 1, public notification is not mandatory. • Under step 2, there is no rule or NES that specifically precludes public notification of the

activities, and the application is for an activity other than those specified in s95A(5)(b). • Under step 3, public notification is required as the application is for an activity that is

subject to a rule that specifically requires it. • Under step 4, there are no special circumstances that warrant the application being

publicly notified.

It is therefore recommended that this application be processed with public notification.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT – SECTION 104(1)(A) Matters to be considered by the Council when assessing an application for consent under Section 104 of the RMA include, subject to Part II, any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing that activity. In response, the Fourth Schedule of the RMA sets out the matters to be included when preparing an assessment of effects on the environment. Clause 1 of Schedule 4 requires an AEE to assess both the actual and potential effects of the activity, and to describe the mitigation measures to be undertaken to help prevent or reduce those actual or potential effects. As such, there is a requirement for the applicant to provide this information, and a duty for the Council officers to assess and consider it. In this instance, an assessment of the actual and potential effects has been provided within this AEE. Other actual and potential effects have also been considered within section 4.0, which relate to the wider neighbourhood and the natural environment. The proposal is conventional in nature when considering the established height and bulk of the residential apartment building, and the proposal to encapsulate the balconies using a curtain walling system to remediate extensive leaking issues, will not undermine the intent of the zone. Overall, it is not considered that there will be any adverse effects on the surrounding environment resulting from this proposal, which has been further demonstrated by the assessment of wider policies in the following sections.

7.0 SECTION 104 – CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS

7.1 Auckland Unitary Plan: Objectives and Policies

7.1.1 Business – City Centre: Objectives and Policies

Business – City Centre Zone objectives (6) The city centre is an internationally significant centre for business. (7) The city centre is an attractive place to live, learn, work and visit with 24hour vibrant and

vital business, education, entertainment and retail areas. (8) Development in the city centre is managed to accommodate growth and the greatest

intensity of development in Auckland and New Zealand while respecting its valley and ridgeline form and waterfront setting.

(9) The distinctive built form, identified special character and functions of particular areas


Page 18

within and adjoining the city centre are maintained and enhanced. (10) A hub of an integrated regional transport system is located within the city centre. (11) The city centre is accessible by a range of transport modes with an increasing percentage

of residents, visitors, students and workers choosing walking, cycling and public transport.

Policies – City form (29) Enable the tallest buildings and the greatest density of development to occur in the core

central business district. (30) Manage adverse effects associated with building height and form by:

(a) transitioning building height and development densities down to neighbourhoods adjoining the city centre and to the harbour edge;

(b) protecting sunlight to identified public open spaces and view shafts; (c) requiring the height and form of new buildings to respect the valley and ridgeline

form of the city centre and building design to be complementary to existing or planned character of precincts;

(d) and managing the scale, form and design of buildings to: (i) avoid adverse dominance and/or amenity effects on streets and public

open space; (ii) and encourage well-designed, slender towers on sites identified within

the special height area on Map H8.11.3. (31) Maximise light and outlook around buildings. (32) Encourage public amenities to be provided within developments, including publicly

accessible open space, works of art and through site links. Public realm (34) Require building frontages along identified public open spaces and streets to be designed

in a way that provides a sense of intimacy, character, interest and variation, and enclosure at street level.

(36) Protect identified sightlines along streets and public open spaces from the city centre to the harbour, Rangitoto Island, the North Shore and identified sightlines along roads and public open spaces within the city centre to natural features and landmarks.

Comment: The development will not increase the buildings height, with the additional bulk associated with the enclosing of the balconies with a curtain wall to address severe weathertight issues. In this respect the development will not restrict sunlight access to public open spaces or viewshafts. The design of the curtain walling surface will be modulated to provide visual relief and vibrancy, including careful us of colour to enable the lighter curtain wall framing and spandrels to recede while the darker curtain wall framing / spandrels appear to pop out of the façade. This is enhanced by highlighting the bands of louvres (that are both decorative and ventilation louvres). These bands draw the eye and further assist to highlight and pop out the blocks of darker curtain walling. The effect is similar to a Mondrian painting that uses blocks of colour and black framing to create semblances of depth on an otherwise flat canvas. By using these arrangements of color, the design is able to achieve visual interest similar to the neighbouring building at 127 Hobson Street and help enhance the Hobson Street streetscape. The parapet design does not infringe into the volcanic viewshaft and will not restrict identified sightlines to Mt Eden, and within the surrounding pubic open spaces, including views from the city centre to the Harbour and coast beyond.


Page 19

The base colours of the curtain walling have been selected to reduce the stark Black and White contrast, with the design opting for a light grey and a charcoal. The blue highlight bands have been removed and replaced with red and yellow to reduce the visual complexity and make the overall effect more harmonious and warmer. The development will not restrict light access, or outlook, and while the balconies will be removed, this is necessary to waterproof the development and avoid on-going issues. Glazing and outlook will be retained, and the apartments will have additional usable living space which will be usable all year round with ease of access to public outdoor facilities nearby. Overall, the scale, form and design of the building will not appear visually dominant, nor will it result in any adverse amenity effects on the Hobson streetscape or on nearby public open spaces.

7.1.2 Volcanic Viewshafts: Objectives and Policies

D14.2. Objectives (1) The regionally significant views to and between Auckland’s maunga are protected. (2) The locally significant views to Auckland’s maunga are managed to maintain and

enhance the visual character, identity and form of the maunga in the views. D14.3. Policies

(1) Protect the visual character, identity and form of regionally significant volcanic maunga, together with local views to them, by: (a) locating height sensitive areas around the base of the volcanic maunga; (b) and imposing height limits which prevent future encroachment into views of the

volcanic maunga that would erode the visibility to their profile and open space values, while allowing a reasonable scale of development.

(2) Manage subdivision, use and development to ensure that the overall contribution of the regionally significant volcanic maunga scheduled as outstanding natural features to the landscape of Auckland is maintained and where practicable enhanced, including by protecting physical and visual connections to and views between the volcanic maunga.

(3) Protect the historic, archaeological and cultural integrity of regionally significant volcanic features and their surrounds by avoiding activities that detract from these values and the mana of the maunga.

(4) Avoid new buildings or structures that intrude into volcanic viewshafts scheduled in Schedule 9 Volcanic Viewshafts Schedule, except: (a) where they would have no adverse effect on the visual integrity of the volcanic

maunga as seen from the identified viewing point or line; (b) or to allow development up to a two storey height to intrude into a volcanic

viewshaft, where any adverse effect of development is avoided or mitigated; (c) or to allow development located within an identified height sensitive area up to

defined appropriate height limits; (d) or to allow the provision of infrastructure where there are particular functional or

operational needs that necessitate a structure that penetrates the floor of a volcanic viewshaft, there is no reasonably practicable alternative and adverse effects of development are avoided or mitigated.

(5) Avoid new buildings or structures that exceed two storeys in height in a height sensitive area, except where they would have no adverse effect on the visual integrity of any volcanic maunga to which that height sensitive area relates, as seen from any public place.

(6) Require urban intensification to be consistent with the protection of volcanic features and viewshafts.


Page 20

Comment: The development, while increasing the bulk of the building will not extend the buildings height, beyond which has been legally established. The purpose of the Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay is to appropriately protect significant views of Auckland’s volcanic cones. In this case, as the height of the building is not increasing viewshafts to Mt Eden from the surrounding district will not be any further compromised. The development will not detract from Auckland’s unique identity, maintaining the natural and cultural heritage values of the significant volcanic cone that is Mt Eden. The visual character and form of the regionally significant volcanic maunga together with local views of it will be retained. The extent of building height within the viewshaft is not extensive and as evidenced in the perspectives provided, will not erode the visibility of the profile and open space values of volcanic maunga. The development is necessary to address weathertight issues with the existing building, and while the enclosing of the balconies will increase the bulk of the building, the height is not changing ensuring that overall the contribution of Mt Eden as an outstanding natural feature to the landscape of Auckland is maintained. No new activities are being proposed, and overall the historic, archaeological and cultural integrity of the regionally significant volcanic feature and its surrounds will be protected.

Figure 2: Elevation of Imperial Garden Apartments with area of height infringement highlighted yellow


Page 21

Figure 3: Plan view of height infringement

There is a clear directive in the policies to avoid structures that intrude into volcanic viewshafts, however there are exceptions which enable development where there is no adverse effect on the visual integrity of the volcanic maunga as seen from the identified viewing point or line. This is the case with the subject development, the development is necessary to allow for the functional remediation of a leaky building and there is no reasonably practicable alternate. The enclosure of the balconies will not have any adverse visual effects on the viewshafts to Mt Eden. The current building is already encroaching on the height limit within this shaft. The proposal is effectively caught by a rule requiring automatic notification rather than assessment of effects which resulted in their being potential landscape effects on the viewshaft. The building will continue to form part of the densely occupied building mass of the CBD and the variation will not be obvious to the naked eye from the viewshaft viewing point.

7.2 Section 104(1)(C) Section 104(1)(C) of the RMA requires that Council consider any other matters relevant and reasonably necessary to determine an application. There are no other documents considered relevant to this application.

7.3 Section 104D As a non-complying activity, the proposal has to pass at least one of the tests of s104D. If the application fails both tests of s104D then the application must be refused. In assessing the degree of adverse effects for s104D, reliance is placed on the broad assessment and conclusion for the s95A adverse effects assessment. This includes:

• adoption of the conclusion for the “permitted baseline”, applied in the context of s104(2); and

• disregarding any adverse effects on persons who have provided written approvals.


Page 22

In this instance, the current building is already encroaching on the height limit within the protected viewshaft; however the proposal does not seek to encroach any further into the viewshaft and therefore has the same visual impact on Mt Eden. The proposal seeks to develop an existing façade treatment to a building to increase the usability of the building, whilst modernising its appearance. The alternating treatment breaks up the mass of the built form in order to reduce the blankness of the high-rise on public realms and associated viewing points. The minimisation of change to the building height further reduces the effects caused to the volcanic viewshaft and ensures that site lines to Mt Eden are maintained. Removing the balconies creates a more consistent façade to the building faces and therefore ties in with the surrounding urban fabric of Hobson Street and the Auckland Central Area. The modernisation of the building façade also ties in with the surrounding built from; providing a modern architectural built form.

7.4 Proposed Duration of Consent Section 123 (d) of the RMA prescribes a standard consent period. In this case, it is requested that a 5-year consent period be imposed.

8.0 PART 2 PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE RMA

8.1 Section 5 The purpose of the RMA under Section 5 is the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment. The proposal is consistent with this purpose because the activity makes efficient use of the land while retaining an acceptable level of amenity.

8.2 Section 6 Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage. Although the site is adjacent to the coast, the proposed hanger extension is well back from the coastal protection yard, and will not compromise coastal character. As such, there are no matters of national importance relevant to this proposal.

8.3 Section 7 Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent and includes the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. The proposal is consistent with this purpose because an acceptable level of amenity will be achieved.

8.4 Section 8 Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The granting of resource consent for the proposal would not be contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, as there are no historical events or circumstances relevant to the Crowns


Page 23

partnership with Tangata Whenua, connected to the use of the subject site. Overall the application is considered to meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as the proposal achieves the purpose of the RMA being the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

9.0 CONCLUSION This application seeks consent from Council to enclose the current façade and balconies on the western, northern and eastern elevations of Imperial Garden Apartments. The enclosure will utilise a curtain wall system, extending from level one to the twelfth floor on the western and northern elevations and from level two to the twelfth on the eastern façade (Hobson Street). The proposal will not change the façade of the ground floor on the Hobson Street frontage. Slight adjustments will be made to the roof flashing in order to accommodate the new curtain wall system; this however will not affect the height of the current building. A variation is also proposed to amend the total GFA of the apartments due to the enclosure of the balconies. This will require the deletion of condition 21 on LUC80183261. With regard to actual or potential adverse effects on the environment these are less than minor, and the proposal is consistent with the relevant Objectives and Policies of the zone. That said, the application is required to be publicly notified as the activities are subject to rule D14.5(1)(b) that requires public notification (s95A(8)(a)). Subsequent to the notification process, resource consent should be granted to this proposal, given that an assessment under s104(1)(a) of the RMA has shown that the actual and potential effects of the proposal will be acceptable. The proposal is not deemed to be inconsistent with the intent of the zone, as well as general development expectations for the wider area. In accordance with an assessment under s104(1)(b) of the RMA, the proposal will be consistent with the relevant statutory documents. This application is consistent with Part 2 of the RMA, and adverse effects will be less than minor. Finally, given general compliance with relevant statutory documents we are of the opinion that this application will satisfy the statutory obligations under Section 104 and 104D of the Resource Management Act 1991, and based on the engineering certification provided within this application, consent can therefore be granted accordingly. AEE prepared by:

Nick Mattison Civix Limited – Planning and Engineering Mobile: 021733232 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

135 hobson road, central auckland

Documents