before the auckland unitary plan independent …
Post on 09-Dec-2021
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management
Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010
AND IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081f Rezoning and
Precincts (Geographical Areas) AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further
submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF TODD WILLIAM WEBB
ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL
BOMBAY 1 PRECINCT
24 FEBRUARY 2016
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of my rebuttal evidence is to address matters arising from the
evidence filed by Takanini Properties Limited (the Submitter) in relation to the
proposed Bombay 1 precinct.
1.2 Overall, I consider that the Submitter's planning evidence supports the
establishment of the new Bombay 1 precinct. Having reviewed that evidence, I
consider some changes are required to the precinct, including the deletion of sub-
precinct C and the removal of the associated rural activities provided for within the
sub-precinct. I oppose changes to broaden the scope of commercial activities
provided for on the site. In my opinion the changes are not supported by sufficient
evidence and seek to re-litigate matters addressed through the recent plan change
process.
1.3 I support the revised precinct provisions set out in Attachment 1 to this evidence.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 My name is Todd William Webb. I have the qualifications and experience set out in
my evidence in chief dated 29 January 2016. I have been engaged by the Council
to respond to submissions received on the notified PAUP and to provide planning
evidence in relation to the Bombay 1 precinct. The new precinct was requested by
the Auckland Council to give effect to recent decisions in respect of Private Plan
Change 36 (PC36) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) (the
Operative Plan). PC 36 established a ‘Motorway and Rural Service Special’ zone
(Part 44) on the land located at 2038 Great South Road, Bombay.
2.2 I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance
with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court
Practice Note.
2.3 In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of
the Submitter, on the proposed Bombay 1 precinct. This rebuttal statement
addresses the issues in that evidence.
3. SCOPE
3.1 In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of
the Submitter on Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) in
relation to the proposed Bombay 1 precinct. This rebuttal statement responds to
various issues raised in the Submitter's planning evidence from David Haines.
3.2 The Submitter is the landowner of 2038 Great South Road, Bombay which is the
land subject to PC36. The undeveloped land is located between State Highway 1,
Mill Road and Great South Road, at the Bombay motorway interchange. As
proposed in my evidence in chief, the northern area of the site at 2038 Great South
Road comprised sub-precinct B of the proposed Bombay precinct, while the
southern portion comprised sub-precinct C.
3.3 In my evidence in chief on the Bombay 1 precinct I grouped related submissions
into sub-groups or "themes". This rebuttal statement will adopt a similar approach
in relation to the evidence in chief from the Submitter.
3.4 The sub-groups or "themes" that will be addressed in this evidence are as follows:
(a) Recognition of the recent resource consent; and
(b) Provisions to provide for new activities.
4. RECOGNITION OF THE RECENT RESOURCE CONSENT
4.1 The Operative Plan rezoned the whole of the site ‘Motorway and Rural Service
Area’ and provided for a small number of Rural Industry type activities within sub-
precinct C (Area B under the Operative Plan). It is my understanding these
activities formed part of the landowner's original development concept, which has
now been superseded by the recent resource consent, which is described in
paragraph 7.10 of my EIC. Paragraph 26 of Mr Haines’ evidence states:
‘rather than developing Areas A and B as two distinct planning units, the
landowner, via its recent resource consent, has rationalised the development
of the Site in a manner that better reflects its current features and
characteristics.’
4.2 As identified in paragraph 51 of Mr Haines’ evidence sub-precinct C is to be used
solely for wastewater and stormwater treatment and disposal purposes following the
approval of resource consent to establish a service station and drive-through
restaurant on the site.
4.3 Having reviewed the recent decisions of Council on PC36, and the recent resource
consent granted for the site, I concur with Mr Haines that there is no longer a
justification for maintaining the delineation between sub-precincts B and C. I also
agree that as the rural industry-related activities, which PC36 sought to provide, are
no longer wanted by the landowner and do not accord with the consented use of the
land, these should be removed from the precinct.
4.4 Acknowledging that Council’s rebuttal evidence on rezoning supports a change
from Rural Production to Neighbourhood Centre, I support the deletion of sub-
precinct C and the associated rural production activities provided for therein. An
amended precinct plan and precinct provisions are provided in Attachment 1 to my
evidence.
5. PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE FOR NEW ACTIVITIES
5.1 As outlined in paragraphs 64 and 65 of Mr Haines’ evidence, the Submitter seeks
changes to the provisions of the Bombay 1 precinct to allow for the establishment of
supermarkets up to 450m2 GFA per tenancy as a permitted activity, and up to
2000m2 GFA as a restricted discretionary activity. Mr Haines also seek to provide
for retail up to 450m2 per tenancy a permitted activity within the precinct.
5.2 Under the operative provisions applying to the site owned by the Submitter at 2038
Great South Road and the BP Service Centre at 216 Mill Road (sub-precinct A) -
supermarkets and retail up to 450m2 are non-complying activities.
5.3 As acknowledged in the evidence of Mr Haines, the submission of Auckland Council
sought the establishment of the precinct to give effect to recent Council decisions in
respect of PC36 to the Operative Plan. In this regard, I note that the purpose of the
precinct identifies that it seeks to restrict activities to those that will not generate
adverse effects, including cumulative effects, on the function, role and amenity of
neighbouring centres, beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects
or trade competition.
5.4 The issue of retail distributional effects was a main issue within the recent plan
change, with submissions from parties including the Waikato District Council (WDC)
seeking reassurance that the new motorway service area would not affect the
Pokeno township. The submission from WDC resulted in the Hearings Panel
amending the reasons and explanation for the Objective, Policies and Methods to
read:
‘The desirability of establishing motorway and rural service activities at this
strategic location must be managed to ensure that activities do not give rise to
adverse effects on the environment, particularly in regards to distribution
effects on the existing centres of Pukekohe, Tuakau, Pokeno and Waiuku.’
5.5 The section 32 report prepared by Mr Haines (dated March 2012) and lodged with
PC36 addressed the issue of effects on centres. With respect to the policy
restricting activities in the zone to those that will not have adverse distributional
effects on established centres, page 14 of Mr Haines’ section 32 report identifies
the benefits of the proposed policy as:
• Will ensure that there are no adverse distributional effects on retail activities
in the existing zoned centres such as Pukekohe, Waiuku and Tuakau.
• Will reduce traffic generation.
5.6 The section 32 report prepared by Mr Haines goes onto state that he considers the
policy will be efficient and effective as it restricts activities within the zone to those
that will not have adverse distributional effects on Franklin District’s existing
centres.
5.7 Noting that the Submitter is proposing to allow supermarkets and retail to 450m2 per
tenancy as a permitted activity and that no control is proposed on the number of
tenancies permitted on each site, no expert evidence has been submitted to
address whether the provision for these activities could give rise to cumulative
effects. This includes effects on the function, role and amenity of neighbouring
centres, beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects or trade
competition. Additionally, the Submitter has not presented evidence regarding the
potential traffic effects arising from multiple retail and supermarket tenancies that
would be permitted under the revised precinct provisions.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 In summary, having considered the evidence received from the Submitter in relation
to the Bombay 1 precinct, I agree with the evidence of David Haines that changes
to the precinct plan and provisions to remove provision for the rural service activities
are appropriate given the resource consent granted for the site. These changes are
reflected in Attachment 1 to this evidence. However, I do not support the other
changes proposed by Mr Haines, in particular having reviewed the decision and
associated documents provided with PC36, I consider changes making provision for
retail and supermarkets on the site would be contrary to the intent of the precinct
and are not the most appropriate way of achieving the purpose of the RMA.
Todd Webb
24 February 2016
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
1
Editorial notes: (retain below as appropriate)
Council's proposed changes to the submitter’s proposed precinct wording are shown in strikethrough and underline
Red text changes record amendments proposed in rebuttal evidence
1 x.x. Bombay 1 precinct Precinct description The underlying zoning of land within this precinct is the Neighbourhood Centre and Rural Production zone. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct. The precinct applies to two sites located at 2038 Great South Road and 216 Mill Road, which are located in proximity to the Bombay on / off ramps of State Highway 1. The purpose of the precinct is to provide for establishment and operation of motorway service areas in proximity to the Bombay motorway junction. The precinct seeks to restrict activities to those needed to meet the demands of motorists for convenient services, while ensuring safe and efficient movement of traffic in proximity to the State Highway 1, adequate on-site infrastructure and the amenity effects on adjacent properties are minimised. The precinct also make provision for suitable rural activities, acknowledging its semi-rural location.
2 Objectives The underlying Neighbourhood Centre and Rural Production zones and Auckland-wide objectives apply in this precinct, in addition to those specified below, with the exception of D3.6. Objective 1.
1. Motorway and rural service activities are established within adjacent to the State Highway 1 Bombay on/off ramps.
2. The site layout and design provides safe and convenient access for pedestrians and vehicles.
3. The amenity values of land adjoining the precinct are maintained/ protected. 4. Buildings and activities with the site do not interfere with the safety or efficiency of the
surrounding road network.
3 Policies The underlying Neighbourhood Centre and Rural Production zones and Auckland-wide policies apply in this precinct addition to those specified below, with the exception of D3.6. Policy 1 and Policy4a and D6.2, Policy 2, 3, 4 and 5.
1. Restrict activities in the precinct to those that will not generate adverse effects,
including cumulative effects, on the function, role and amenity of neighbouring town centres, beyond those effects ordinarily associated with trade effects or trade competition.
2. Enable activities in the precinct that serve motorway users and those reliant on high
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
2
levels of access to district arterial roads. 3. Manage activities and development within the precinct to maintain amenity values of
adjacent areas. 4. Design the site layout access to ensure safe and convenient access for vehicles and
pedestrians 5. Locate buildings and activities so that they do not interfere with the safety or
efficiency of the surrounding road network.
Precinct Rules
x.x Bombay precinct
The underlying zoning of land within the motorway precinct is the Neighbourhood Centre and Rural Production zone. Refer to the planning maps for the location and extent of the precinct. The provisions in Chapter I for the underlying zone do not apply in this precinct, unless otherwise specified below. The Auckland-wide provisions in Chapter H apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. The rules in this section implement the objectives and policies in Chapter F, section XX
1. Activity table
The precinct activity tables below replace the underlying zone activity tables. The Auckland-wide activity tables apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below.
Activity table 1- Sub-precinct A & B
Activity Activity status
Residential
Visitor Accommodation P
Commerce
Service stations P
Retail not exceeding 70m2 GFA within
Sub-precinct A P
Retail NC
Produce sales in sub-precinct A P
Food & Beverage P
Drive-through Restaurants P
Michele Perwick� 27/1/2016 9:19 AMComment [1]: Consequential amendment from Topic 004 Primary evidence of Linley Wilkinson
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 3:39 PMComment [2]: Inclusion of sub-precinct A in the precinct is outside the scope of submissions see para 7.6 of evidence .
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:17 AMComment [3]: Operative plan provides for grocery, stationery and requisites not exceeding 70m2 and vegetable sales in
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
3
Offices accessory to the primary activity on the site and: a. the office GFA does not exceed 30 per cent of all buildings on the site or b. the office GFA does not exceed 100m2
P
Offices NC
Community
Emergency Services P
Industry
Industrial Activities NC
Development
New Buildings RD
Additions and alterations to buildings that are less than:
- 25 percent of the existing GFA or the building, or
- -250m2whichever is lesser
P
Internal alterations to buildings P
Additions and Alterations not otherwise provided for
RD
Rural
Farming in Sub-precinct A P
Activities not otherwise provided for NC
Activity table 2- Sub- precinct C
Activity Activity status
Residential
Visitor Accommodation P
Commerce
Cafe & Restaurants RD
Retail NC
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:03 AMComment [4]: Provided as a controlled in the operative plan – change for consistency with PAUP
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:03 AMComment [5]: Provided as a controlled it the operative plan – change for consistency with PAUP
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:05 AMComment [6]: Provided for as discretionary in the operative versions – change for consistency with PAUP approach.
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
4
Offices accessory to the primary activity on the site and: a. the office GFA does not exceed 30 per cent of all buildings on the site or b. the office GFA does not exceed 100m2
P
Offices NC
Community
Emergency Services P
Industry
Industrial Activities NC
Rural
On-site primary produce manufacturing
P
Post-harvest facilities P
Rural Services D
Rural Industry D
Development
New Buildings RD
Additions and alterations to buildings that are less than:
- 25 percent of the existing GFA or the building, or
- 250m2whichever is lesser
P
Internal alterations to buildings P
Additions and Alterations not otherwise provided for
RD
2. Land use controls The land use controls applying in the Bombay precinct replace the land use controls in the underlying zones. 2.1 Stormwater 1. All new activities within sub-precincts B & C must have an on-site stormwater
management system, able to contain a 5% AEP event 10- minute storm event from the site without overflowing. The system must empty within a 24 hour time period.
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 3:39 PMComment [7]: See para 11.6 of evidence
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:40 AMComment [8]: As above
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:41 AMComment [9]: Provided as a controlled in the operative plan – change for consistency with PAUP
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:41 AMComment [10]: Provided as a controlled in the operative plan – change for consistency with PAUP
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
5
2. On-site stormwater management measures must be designed and located such that any overtopping or failure of the measures does not result in the discharge of contaminants into natural waterways.
3. Any development that does not comply with clause 1 and 2 above is a discretionary
activity.
2.2 Vehicle Access 1. Vehicle access within sub-precincts B & C, must be in the locations identified on precinct
plan 1.
2. Any development that does not comply with clause 1 above is a discretionary activity.
2.3 Cafe and Restaurant 1. Any cafe and restaurant in sub-precinct C must be ancillary to the on-site primary
produce manufacturing,
2. Any development that does not comply with clause 1 above is a non-complying activity activity.
2.4 Produce Sales
1. Produce sales in sub-precinct A must not exceed two permanent premises and one
market area.
2. Only produce grown or produced on the site, or on a site owned by the same landholder, may be sold or offered for sale.
3. Development controls The land use controls applying in the Bombay 1 precinct replace the land use controls in the underlying zone development control rules. The Auckland-wide controls apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. 3.1 Building height 1. Buildings must not exceed 7.5 m in height.
3.2 Yards
1. 5m from all boundaries
3.3 Landscaping
2. A landscape buffer of 5m in depth must be provided on all boundaries excluding access
points.
3. Yards must be planted with a mixture of trees, shrubs or ground cover plants (including grass) within and along the full extent of the yard for a depth of five metres.
3.4 Location of Fuel Dispensars 1. To prevent vehicles queuing onto surrounding roads, fuel dispensing units or points must
be at least 12 metres from the midpoint of the vehicle crossing measured from the boundary. For fuel dispensers catering for trucks this distance must be at least 18 metres.
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 2:06 PMComment [11]: Consistency with Rural zone approach for produce sales – operative provisions cannot be enforced
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
6
1. Assessment – Restricted discretionary activities For development that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Bombay precinct, the council will restrict its discretion to the following matters:
1. New buildings and alterations and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for
a. building design and external appearance b. design of parking, access and servicing c. on-site infrastructure
2. Cafes & Restaurants in sub-precinct C
a. rural character and amenity values b. noise c. traffic volume and safety d. stormwater
Assessment criteria For development that is a restricted discretionary activity in the Bombay 1 precinct, the following assessment criteria apply:
1. New buildings and alterations and additions to buildings not otherwise provided for a. Building design and external appearance
i. Buildings should be designed to relate to each other and the features and characteristics of the site, its immediate and wider rural environment including the site’s location at the entry into Bombay and its role in responding to the ‘gateway concept’, along with achieving high design standards for the built elements.
b. Design of parking, access and servicing i. At grade parking should be softened with landscaping, including tree planting. ii. Vehicle crossings and access ways should be designed to reduce vehicle speed,
be visually attractive and clearly signal to both vehicles and pedestrians the presence of a crossing or access way.
iii. A safe and convenient pedestrian environment with a good standard of amenity should be created within the site which: • Provides direct and well defined routes • Links car parking areas to building access points • Incorporates pedestrian linkages to adjacent sites, streets and public open
spaces, (where appropriate) c. On-site infrastructure
i. Adequate on-site infrastructure should be provided to service the activities;
2. Cafes & Restaurants in sub-precinct C i. Refer to Clause 4.2.2 a – e of the Rural zone rules.
2. Assessment –Restricted discretionary controls infringements
a. Matters of discretion In addition to the general matters set out in clause G2.3 of the General Provisions the council will restrict its discretion to the matters below for the relevant land use control infringement.
Todd Webb � 28/1/2016 11:42 AMComment [12]: Assessment criteria are generally consistent
Proposed track changes to Bombay 1 New precinct for evidence dated 28/12/2015.
7
1. Building Height a. Effects on the planned built character of the precinct b. Effects on amenity
2. Yards
a. Effects on the transport network b. Effects on amenity
3. Landscaping
a. Effects on amenity
4. Location of Fuel Dispensers
a. Effects on transport network
Assessment Criteria
In addition to the general assessment criteria in clause G2.3 of the General Provisions the council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the development control infringement. 1. Building Height
(a) The proposed height of the buildings should be compatible with the planned built character of the precinct.
(b) Additional building height should not detract from the character and amenity values of the area, in particular the amenity of neighboring rural sites!
2. Yards (a) Yards should not be used for activities or buildings likely to affect the safe and
efficient operation of the surrounding road network.
(b) Any buildings or activities within the 5m yard not detract from the character and amenity values of the area, in particular the amenity of neighboring rural sites
3. Landscaping
(a) Landscaping should soften the visual impact of buildings and activities so they do not visually detract from the locality including views from the motorway.
4. Location of Fuel Dispensars
(a) Fuel dispensars should be positioned so that they do not result in vehicles queuing onto surrounding roads or generate conflict at the access points to the precinct.
top related