NORTH SHORE CITY

DISTRICT PLAN

PLAN CHANGE 17

Addressing the Effects of Infill Housing on the Character of Residential Areas

DECISION NOTICE MATERIALS

Enclosed: • Release of Decision Notice • Public Notice

North Shore City Council Operative (in part) District Plan Release of Decision Notice/Part Withdrawal: Proposed Plan Change 17: Addressing the Effects of Infill Housing on the Character of Residential Areas. North Shore City Council has released its decision notice relating to submissions to Proposed Plan Change 17. The proposed plan change is deemed to have been amended in accordance with this decision as at 22 February 2007. Under Clause 8(d) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Commissioners have also resolved to withdraw the following parts of the Proposed Plan Change:

i) the proposed changes under 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports as they relate to the Res 3 zone; ii) the proposed changes under 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports requiring a setback of

garages/carports 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit; iii) the proposed changes under 9.4.5.3 that make rear lots a non complying activity in the Res

3 zone. The reasons for the withdrawal of these parts of the Plan Change are: • The requirement that a garage or carport be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling will

be problematic in many infill situations particularly on properties where the existing dwelling is already setback towards the rear of the site as there is often no option other than locating a garage or carport forward of the dwelling. Even though the garage may be in front of the dwelling in such situations, its impact on the streetscape is minimal due to the distance from the front boundary.

• A review of the development controls for the Residential 3 zone is currently underway. As this review will focus specifically on Res 3 zone issues, including the impact of garages and carports on the streetscape (as opposed to general infill issues under Plan Change 17), it is appropriate that the proposed changes to garages/carports for the Res 3 zone be withdrawn and the matter be addressed in the Res 3 zone plan change.

• The proposal to make rear lots a non complying activity in all Res 3 sub zones is inappropriate in the Res 3B and 3C zones where some large undeveloped sites still exist. Further subdivision in accordance with the min net site areas for the zone on these sites and also existing rear lots can be undertaken with no more than minor adverse effects and in a manner that is not contrary to what the District Plan is seeking to achieve.

Copies of the decision notice may be inspected at North Shore City libraries and council offices located at: Takapuna: 1 The Strand, Takapuna Glenfield: 90 Bentley Ave, Glenfield Birkenhead: 33 Rawene Road, Birkenhead Devonport: 3 Victoria Rd, Devonport East Coast Bays: Cnr Bute and Glen Rds, Browns Bay Albany: Kell Dr, Albany Dated at Takapuna Thursday 22 February 2007. John Brockies CHIEF EXECUTIVE

G:\Planning\District Plan\Plan Changes\Plan Change 17\PCF17Decisionnotice.doc

DECISION NOTICE PCDN-17

Resource Management Act 1991 NORTH SHORE DISTRICT PLAN DECISIONS ON SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

FILE REF 2440-05 TOPIC: Proposed Plan Change 17: Addressing the Effects of

Infill Housing on the Character of Residential Areas HEARING DATE: 30 October, 3, 6 & 10 November 2006

SUBMISSION NO: See Appendix 2 NAME: See Appendix 2 FURTHER SUBMISSION NO:

See Decision Notice

NAME: See Decision Notice

COUNCILLORS PRESENT:

Commissioners Blair (Chairperson), Holman and Dunn

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Structure This decision notice sets out the Commissioners’ decision on behalf of Council in relation to each submission and further submission received in respect of Plan Change 17: Addressing the Effects of Infill Housing on the Character of Residential Areas. Commissioners were delegated the authority to hear submissions and determine the plan change. The decision has been made pursuant to clause 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 and includes a re-evaluation of the section 32 material. The Commissioners’ consideration of the plan change and submissions is set out at Section 2 of the decision notice with reasons for their decisions. This section also contains the decision responses to all submissions and further submissions by submitter number and name. Appendix 1 contains revised text changes to the plan change arising from the decision and associated consequential amendments. Appendix 2 contains a list of all submitters and further submitters grouped by topic. 1.2 Summary of Process

The proposed plan change was publicly notified on 6 April 2006; Submissions closed on 19 May 2006; The summary of submissions was publicly notified on 20 July 2006; Further submissions closed on 1 Sept 2006; A hearing was held on 30 October, 3, 6 & 10 November 2006; and Deliberations by the Commissioners took place on 13 November, 1 & 19 December 2006.

1.3 Late Submissions The following late submissions were received after 19 May 2006: Submissions numbers 57, 58, 70, 73, 78, 83, 86, 100, 150, 151, 193, 195, 211, 257, 262, 268, 269, 272, 297, 308, 328, and 331.

2

A further submission – submission number 367 was received in time at the East Coast Bays Area Office but was not received at Head Office until 30 September 2006. It was therefore not included in the summary of submissions. However, the points raised in the submission and the relief sought were also raised by a number of other submitters. Under Section 37 – Power of Waiver and extension of time limits, of the Resource Management Act, a local authority may: b) waive a failure to comply with a requirement under this Act, regulations, or a plan for the time or method of service of documents. Under Section 37A Requirements for waivers and extensions, a local authority must not extend a time limit or waive compliance with a time limit… in accordance with section 37 unless it has taken into account - (a) the interests of any person who, in its opinion, may be directly affected by the extension or waiver; and (b) the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of a proposal, policy statement or plan; (c) its duty under section 21 to avoid unreasonable delay. (2) A time period may not be extended under section 37 for- (a) a time not exceeding twice the maximum time period specified in this Act; or (3) A consent authority or local authority must ensure that every person who, in its opinion, is directly affected by the extension of a time limit or the waiver of compliance with a time limit, a method of service, or the service of a document is notified of the extension. As none of the late submissions exceeded the time limit by more than twice the period specified, the Commissioners resolved that all the late submission be accepted. Note, submission number 367 was received on time. 1.4 Withdrawal of Parts of Proposed Plan Change 17 Under Clause 8(d) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Commissioners resolve to withdraw the following parts of the Proposed Plan Change:

i) the proposed changes under 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports as they relate to the Res 3 zone; ii) the proposed changes under 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports requiring a setback of

garages/carports 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit; iii) the proposed changes under 9.4.5.3 that make rear lots a non complying activity in the Res 3

zone. The reasons for this decision are discussed under the relevant topic headings. 1.5 Evidence Presented by Submitters at the Hearing The following additional evidence was presented by submitters at the hearing: 1.5.1 R Sherrell Questioned why the change to minor residential units was so broad when only Albany and Glenfield Community Boards had raised the issue. Noted that only Devonport Community Board had raised the issue of garages in front yards in relation to the Bayswater area. Bayswater has a very open streetscape. Garages enable a designer to manipulate the space. It was a fallacy that openness meant safer streets. He questioned whether a localised issue was driving a citywide change. Landscaping is an important element in softening the urban environment. It was misleading to use the photo on page 162 of the Infill Report to illustrate the problem. Long Bay controls as proposed in the Plan Change were inappropriate for the rest of the city. A double garage (6mx6m) can fit on a 450 sqm site.

3

The proposed rule doesn’t say garage only, relates to garages in the front yard and the proposed changes to the rules do not address the situation where a garage is at the ground level of a two storey dwelling. The rules should focus on garages within the front yard. 1.5.2 A Brabant Stated that in general he supported the proposed changes but the separation distances between dwellings should be carefully considered because there were cases where a blanket ban on flexibility was unduly harsh. It should therefore be considered as a discretionary matter with the appropriateness of any reduced yard dependant upon achieving suitable privacy, fencing. Agreed that extra strength in the rules was required, as the situation was getting out of hand. 1.5.3 S Yates Represents several Birkenhead residents. Was opposed to eliminating minor residential units and increasing min lot sizes in Res 4 zone. As a professional planner, seeks controls that are clear, concise, and have a degree of flexibility. Proposed controls were not sustainable in terms of the Regional Growth Strategy, the intention of the Act or in terms of consistency with the current District Plan. Noted that Auckland City does not provide for minor residential units and this has resulted in people living in garages. Control flexibility is required because every site is different and there needs to be flexibility in terms of matters such as privacy, open space, yards and distance between buildings. The RMA was concerned about managing effects rather than prescribing rules. Stated that the proposed 600 sqm min site area for minor residential units was a reasonable threshold and the reduction in size from 70 sqm to 60 sqm was a reasonable compromise. North Shore City can be more proactive in looking after its citizens by retaining minor residential units. 1.5.4 G Martinsen Overall concern is that as the rules become more prescriptive, the opportunities for creative design solutions are diminished. This causes cost and time problems and often a designer/developer will do something else, even if the original proposal was the best option for the site. Minor Residential Units fulfil a significant role in every community – for the young and elderly and provide an essential part of housing choice. The move to eliminate minor residential units is elitist and discriminatory and also contrary to the stated objective of maximising use of existing infrastructure to prevent urban sprawl. The stated adverse effects such as loss of open space, loss of trees and vegetation and loss of privacy are all covered by District Plan rules. The removal of the Res 4B zone is a backward step and contrary to the stated objective of maximising the use of existing infrastructure to prevent urban sprawl. More logical step would be to reduce the minimum site size in the new Res 4 zone to 400 sqm. Pointed out that there are strict development controls determining the extent of density, site coverage, impermeable areas, outdoor living courts and service courts and the site size is of secondary importance when determining amenity. False reasoning to equate larger site size with improved character and amenity and the reverse is in fact true with larger sites resulting in an increase in the size of homes. Supports the introduction of design guidelines – far better approach than the blunt instrument of restricting site sizes. If site sizes are smaller, a higher standard of resource consent processing is required. For yard separation distances there must be discretion available for the designer to produce the best design for any given situation. This is especially so in North Shore City given its topography. The recommendation that the owner of a site cannot give approval to themselves would be unworkable as there are ways around it from a legal point of view i.e. transferring the ownership to another party. The use of fire separation requirements to justify increased separation distances is inappropriate in the context of the RMA. There was no reason why an existing house could not be modified to meet the character and fire requirements. It was difficult to see how a garage set back 5m from the street frontage could ever dominate the road any more than a two storey house in exactly the same position. If the rules were to apply only to garages in the front yard they would make more sense. The proposed rules would render the majority of homes on the North Shore non-complying. The requirement that garages or carports not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling takes no account of the width, shape or orientation of the site or of side entry garages which present a wall

4

to the street. North Shore City presents one of the highest levels of difficulty for achieving good housing design solutions largely due to the topography of the land and the rules impose a further layer of restriction on the design process which reduces the possibility of good design. Suggested an alternative wording which would meet the objective of the plan change – the garage door or main vehicle opening of garages or carports located in a front yard must not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit to which they relate. Stated that there were already rules in place in the Res 3 zone to protect against the loss of trees and the visual privacy of adjoining properties. Of the view that infill development must be provided for in all zones, provided it can be demonstrated that the objectives of those zones can be met. Large sites place pressure on land owners to maximise the value of the site. Noted that the areas with the greatest historical character have the smallest sites and that historical and architectural character are more likely to be preserved by allowing smaller sites with sympathetic development including both building and landscape. 1.5.5 MSC Consulting Group - P O’Hagen Owns a property at 37 Tanui Road, Devonport. Zoned Res 3C. Wants to subdivide into two lots – 700 sqm section at the rear and 1400 sqm section at the front. Protected trees at the front of the property preclude a front lot. Income from the sale of the section would enable the existing heritage dwelling to be upgraded. Neighbours already have a garage in the front yard and a high fence. Supports preliminary recommendation but disagrees with the comment on the possibility of brownfields redevelopment – this would apply to only a small percentage of properties. 1.5.6 W Harris Concerned about the Res 3A zone – lot sizes and rear lots. There are 71 sites available for further subdivision but only 20-25 sites available today, notwithstanding redevelopment. Very small percentage of sites remaining with development potential. Therefore questioned the justification for the plan change. Average site size in Devonport is 389 sqm, his property was 1320 sqm. If the intention is to protect heritage and cultural character – size of the lot is not critical – design is the key – issue is what is put on the site not the size of the lot. If there is a requirement/need for green space – parks and reserves should be provided, not the backyards of neighbour’s properties. Increase in lot size and no rear lots will not address the problem. 1.5.7 R Sadler 3 areas of concern – minor residential units, min lot size in Res 4 & garages/carports Minor residential units fulfil a very useful purpose – accommodate dependant relatives, extended families, owner occupation or rental accommodation. They need to meet bulk and location rules. Don’t see the need to change rules provided they are administered properly. If you do away with mru’s will end up with larger homes and the issue of how you control boarders, lodgers etc. Favour retaining Res 4A & 4B zones. Min lot size in Res 4A using delineated area is 330 sqm Min lot size should be 400 sqm but still allow delineated area. Need to provide for growth otherwise there will be greater sprawl. Problem with developers granted dispensations for yard controls – e.g. 71/73 Nile Road – new house 1.2m off the living room of the existing house – legacy passed onto future landowners. Developers have a commercial interest only. If control was exercised then would get the complaints, problems. Problems arise from insensitive planning & relaxed controls, not density, lot sizes. Don’t think there is an issue with garages/carports – in many streets these are built in the front yard. Disagree with the 50% control. Ex. 92 Francis Street – no garage or off street parking – more preferable to have parking onsite. From a valuation/marketing perspective it doesn’t matter where a garage is located – people are concerned with living environment, orientation to the sun – we should be trying to create good living environments for homes & sensible garaging close to the street.

5

1.5.8 T Harrison Concerned about the Res 3 zone controls in Devonport. Leave development controls as they are. Want to see something that fits in with the community. Need to apply existing regulations consistently. Unfair to prevent last remaining property owners from subdividing. 1.5.9 PM Campbell Architectural designer with 36 years experience in Takapuna. Concerned about separation distance & visual privacy. 1.2m side yards but 6m separation between dwellings on the same site. Allowed 1m separation under the building code without fire rating. Allowed to build garages on the boundary so long as they are fire rated. Should also apply in a crosslease situation from the delineated boundary. Ownership of the property should not matter – let owners grant consent to themselves. Current bulk & location requirements don’t need to be further complicated. Protecting visual privacy on adjacent sites is difficult. There are a lot of privacy rules already. Screening, fencing & vegetation are erected or demolished as owners see fit. Don’t need limited discretionary applications – becomes a subjective argument. 1.5.10 L Cappel Purchased current property 8 years ago & one of the reasons was because there was sufficient space for a minor residential unit. No problem with the current plan, floor area restrictions & reserve contributions. Issue of people not being aware of plan changes. Some unwilling to make a submission because it may jeopardise the treatment of building consent applications recently submitted. Change is fundamental way of life – much of the North Shore was farmland 40 years ago. For North Shore to attract more business, need more housing – what matters is not the fact there is more infill housing but its quality and adequate services such as stormwater & sewerage. Rates aren’t being spent to upgrade services. In regard to loss of vegetation, in order to get building consent, pay reserve contribution – should be spent on parks & reserves. Property would be worth $100,000 less if change was approved – affects ability to pay rates & mortgages. Problem is lack of enforcement of existing rules. People wouldn’t remove kitchens – would become an enforcement issue, & is not reasonable. Should not go below 70 sqm for mru’s – 60 sqm is only a modest 1 bedroom apartment. Need long term proactive planning. Plan change should be dropped, not in the interests of North Shore City. 1.5.11 P Dalton Property was rezoned Res 2B in the 1987 review of the East Coast Bays District Plan – halving the development potential. Want to build a minor residential unit in the future. Existing character of East Coast Bays has gone – used to be batches, now characterised by “monster” houses. To protect the character earth moving machines & chainsaws should be banned. Can’t see the advantage of requiring minor residential units to be attached to the principal dwelling. Relocatable units wouldn’t work with row’s, there would be difficulties in removing some. Elderly want to remain in area, hard to cope with large garden, like to be or feel independent, mru could provide income. Dependant relative approach – too restrictive, too hard to define & police, may not have close relatives, increase mobility of dependant relatives, moving dependants to a new area often increases their dependency.

6

Govt. policy to assist elderly & disables to remain in own homes, other agencies are moving into care in homes, NSC policy is to ensure a variety of housing stock, PC 17 as advertised opposes these policies. 1.5.12 F Payne Owned property for 20 years & towards the end of 2005 became suitable to start development – initial survey & site plan. Any changes made should not come into force until a later date to be specified so that people can plan accordingly, or that any existing property owners be given a certain period of grace during which they can operate under the conditions as they existed prior to April 2006. Outlined anomalies that bringing in the change would create – such as someone who has owned a property for 20 years is treated the same as someone who has owned it for 5 minutes, neighbours obtaining resource consent when others can’t, preventing one party from subdividing when the neighbour already has is illogical & unreasonable. Proposed changes would wipe off $100,000 of property value. Character of an area is something that evolves – infill is now the actual character of many areas, undeveloped properties are now out of character. Removing minor residential units or sites at 350 sqm removes the freedom of choice of home for people and restricts where they could live. 350-450sqm sites give opportunity for a diverse range of housing opportunities to meet community needs. 350-450sqm site should always be allowed for properties originally 900sqm or more i.e. with an average of 450 sqm. Densification near existing shopping areas & work places makes more sense than forcing people onto motorways from outlying areas. Proposed changes come too late. Apply the proposed changes to new developments & it is only fair that where consent applications are already underway they are considered as per the conditions which stood prior to April 2006. 1.5.13 J Vowles Largely agree with the officers recommendations. Object to max size of minor residential unit of 60 sqm. 60 sqm is suitable for students, elderly but not for families especially with children. Minor residential unit of 70-80 sqm is more suitable, especially given children are larger than they used to be, therefore larger room sizes are required. Suggest allow 10 % of the total site area for minor residential units e.g. 60 sqm on a 600 sqm site. 1.5.14 A Thompson Protect the ability to erect a dwelling at 46 Vauxhall Road – a 1138 sqm site. Wants to create another lot of 450 sqm. Currently have application in. Would support limited discretionary activity status. Intention of making rear lots non-complying was to prevent infill development at the rear of heritage areas which are characterised by single dwellings on small lots. There are however, a number of large existing rear lots and undeveloped lots in Res 3 zone – are able to accommodate some additional development while meeting the objectives and policies of the District Plan with minimal adverse effects. Do not need to make rear lots non-complying – assess each application on its merits – consider how the situation could be better managed rather than devaluing properties through an overly restrictive rule. Increasingly regulatory & expensive process of obtaining resource consents for a project that has no impact on the streetscape & minimal impact on surrounding neighbours – rear lots do not always impact on the historical or architectural character of heritage areas. Proposed development at 46 Vauxhall Road - rear site so has no street significance & the properties around the site do not reflect the heritage values of Res 3 zone – character of the area will not be altered by introduction of proposed dwelling. Proposed new house – designed for the rear lot will have less than minor impact – retention of trees on boundaries & further planting of appropriate urban trees & landscaping more than compensate any effect on amenities of adjoining properties.

7

Infill housing is a legitimate land use option – effective way of making use of current infrastructure without adding further to urban sprawl. Issues of fairness and equity. Plan has always been to develop another dwelling on site – alternative is to move further away from long established social networks & where access to public transport, libraries, shops & medical facilities is more difficult. Many neighbours have already done infill housing, added minor units, & subdivided. Rule is overly restrictive & does not take account of particular situations. 1.5.15 C Tonei Has lived at address since 1969 – 1180 sqm property. Zoning enabled 3 dwellings. Always had potential for another dwelling. PC 17 means only larger properties can be subdivided. Had long association with NSC since 1984 regarding property and walkway around Little Shoal Bay. There has been huge changes in Shoal Bay due to erosion/accretion – have lost 20 sqm from original title when property was resurveyed. Land is the only pension the submitter has. Density of development in the area is quite spread – contains navy housing. Want a minor residential unit – don’t mind sharing title. 1.5.16 M Helsby Rear sites are unique in relation to front & side sites in that they cannot be seen & therefore have little or no impact on the historical and architectural nature of the streetscape. Question why prejudice a new rear/existing front lot combination in preference to an old rear/new front combination that in terms of land use result in the same outcome, though have different impact on the historical nature of the area. Plan change proposes unfair and illogical prejudice against rear sites that have limited impact to the historical & architectural streetscape in favour of allowing front & side sites that have maximum potential to impact on the streetscape. Proposed change may have the opposite effect to the objective it is trying to achieve. 1.5.17 G Turner Concerned about boardinghouses and the threshold when a resource consent is required. Proposed to set the threshold at 6. Have lived next to a hostel which was previously a residence. Definition of boardinghouse - place where meals and lodging are provided. Owners/occupiers taking in a boarder is generally not a problem. Problem arises when a family residence is converted into a hostel. Law is not being enforced, difficulties in interpretation, whether meals are provided. Need to tighten up on the definition and distinguish between a boardinghouse and hostel. Adjoining property has 9 lock up bedrooms. No owners are on site and there are two bedrooms in the double garage. Feb 2005 a stop work was placed on the garage. Numerous cars, health & safety issues – if it was a motel it would be closed down. Two issues – garage – how to stop illegal works/prosecute – Council does not have the will or resources to address the issue. How do you prove how many people are living there? Lack of action sends the wrong message to the community – rules need to be backed up by enforcement action. Genuine boarding situation – no problem.

8

1.5.18 Housing NZ Corporation – C Hansen Key issue is affordable housing – residential accommodation & housing for other groups such as those with disabilities, women refuges. Government policy of increasing affordable housing. HNZC looks at opportunities for redevelopment, purchase and infill development. District Plan provisions become important – hence the submission. Don’t have a large landholding in NSC but have a demand there. Property prices on the North Shore are the problem. Interested in working out how to get more affordable housing. Submission is based on the need to ensure plans are not too restrictive & costly in terms of the consents required. Need for both attached and detached minor residential units – maintain choice. Opposes the increase in min lot sizes & general opportunities to provide intensification of affordable residential development. Supports some provisions which seek to retain and enhance amenity values of residential areas through design, landscaping and existing vegetation. Proposed change to mru’s would have a detrimental impact on housing choice and affordability. Allowing a second kitchen sink/dishwashing facility within a residential unit does not provide for privacy benefits offered by a minor residential unit & does not address accommodating other persons who require a smaller unit. Recommended changes are too onerous and restrictive, additional costs incurred for resource consents. Seek that the status quo be retained. HNZ Corporation submission questioned the lowering of the threshold for when a boarding house or residential care centre is considered a discretionary activity from 8 or more to 6 or more. NZHC provides residential care facilities for the community & 8 persons are not considered excessive, or at a level that would adversely effect neighbouring residential amenity. Support the officer’s recommendation to separate boarding houses and residential care centres for those with special needs. HNZC supported the proposed changes to the assessment criteria which seek to retain and enhance the amenity values of residential areas through building design, landscaping and the retention of existing vegetation and landforms where possible. HNZC considers that the proposed amendments are a more appropriate way to allow for the community to provide for their social and economic wellbeing and a more appropriate way to avoid adverse effects on the environment than the overly restrictive controls proposed. HNZC submission sought the provision relating to Res 4 zone area be retained as per the operative District Plan. Support the re-instatement of the threshold for Res 4A but consider limiting appropriate infill development in Res 4B would limit housing choice and resident preferences and be an inefficient use of urban land resource. Intensified residential development around nodes is likely to cater for only one segment of the population – small households & infill development is essential to meet the demand for larger family housing. Seek reinstatement of the provisions of the operative District Plan for Res 4B zone. HCNZ submission raised concerns in respect of deleting provision for intensive housing in the Res 2A zone. Generally support the re-instatement of intensive residential development in Res 2A but are concerned that the deletion of the terms clustering, higher density units and attached housing – amendment is inappropriate and too restrictive. The increase to 1/800 sqm net area is considered too restrictive and will limit development potential. HNZC raised concerns about the removal of flexibility to decrease separation distances between dwellings. Support the recommendation to re-instate control flexibility in respect of separation distances between buildings as each development will be considered on its merits & provides flexibility for developers to use good design principles to achieve adequate levels of residential amenity. HNZC supported the proposed changes to the visual privacy assessment criteria which seek to retain and enhance the amenity values of residential areas through building design and layout. Support officer recommendations – proposed amendments are a more appropriate way to allow for the community to provide for their social and economic wellbeing & a more appropriate way to avoid adverse effects on the environment than overly restrictive controls proposed. HNZC submission raised concerns regarding the removal of flexibility to decrease outdoor space for infill developments.

9

Support officer recommendation for the gradient rule to apply only to a 6m diameter circle & assessment criteria in respect of the usefulness of open space. Additional assessment criteria are too restrictive & onerous and could potentially limit development opportunities for the types of housing need by HNZC tenants – the more restrictive the criteria the more expensive development becomes. It is HNZC policy to provide one vehicle crossing per dwelling in order to ensure adequate amenity value to tenants and it may not be appropriate to share crossings – change may prevent HNZC from meeting its policy requirements & have a detrimental effect upon HNZC residents. HNZC sought Council to retain the 1m set back of garages and carports from the front face of the dwelling or unit as this meets good urban design principles. NZHC concerns are based on its experience & own urban design guidelines – recommended deletion of the 1m setback for garages & carports in front yards needs close scrutiny. HNZC opposed additional controls in respect of setbacks of garages and carports from street frontages – width controls and setbacks from street boundary. Provisions do not address HNZC concerns – these provisions are not always desirable and the consolidation of changes plus the additional assessment criteria is considered onerous and too restrictive and may restrict good urban design outcomes. HNZC sought for the provision relating to the Res 3A zone areas to be retained as per the operative District Plan – current Res 3 zones allow for different development densities to reflect the built heritage and streetscape values of the old established settlements of Devonport, Birkenhead & Northcote. Proposed change does not account for the differences and provide for the redevelopment of larger properties in Res 3 zone. Support the recommended re-instatement of rear lot development and providing for additional infill development in Res 3A zone. Recommendation does not address HNZC’s concerns in respect of the min lot sizes in Res 3A zone & does not take into account the historical differences in house sizes and streetscapes. Limiting appropriate infill development in Res 3A zone would be an inefficient use of urban land resource. 1.5.19 Signature Homes – W King Many older parts of the North Shore – notably those areas close to shops & transport have existing sites just under 900 sqm – change to 450 sqm will cut out all development in areas that are desirable to intensify. Alternative is to allow further sprawl into rural areas – undesirable economic & environmental outcomes. Lot size is largely irrelevant when bulk & location rules are taken into account – these rules should limit the scale of development & if they are not being applied then it is a Council issue. Arbitrary application of 450 sqm will not result in better design & amenity outcomes. Council needs to look at the suitability of sites to be subdivided and a more rigorous application of the bulk & location rules. Support officer recommendation of allowing status quo with the proviso that the 400 sqm applying to Res 4B for 3-5 units be changed to be in line with the Res 4A 2-5 units as there has never been any logical explanation for this difference. Believe the removal of the ability to include up to 20 sqm of communal entrance strip as part of the delineated area to be of no benefit and will make subdivision of those sites in 800-900 sqm difficult. Support officer recommendations for mru's, however unit size should remain the same with no provision to go up to 80 sqm. Mru’s should be able to accommodate 2 bedrooms & it is difficult to do this in 60 sqm. No sense in making substandard crowded accommodation by reducing the min dwelling size. A 2 bedroom mru & a 3 bedroom dwelling have the same impact in terms of people as a 5 bedroom house – diff being that mru development requires more onsite amenity in terms of parking, living courts etc. Problem for years has been illegal mru’s constructed within dwellings. More rigorous application of the bulk & location, parking & site coverage rules would dictate the quality of the development of mru’s while reducing the size will result in lower standard of housing. The recommendation to delete the requirement to set the face of the garage behind the front face of the dwelling is supported – rule is unworkable, 95% of the dwellings Signature Homes has built in last 2 years would not have complied. Retention of 50% rule is not supported – onerous and results in poor design. Site width will frequently dictate the need for resource consent – can’t legislate good design.

10

1.5.20 C Scott Support the proposed plan change. Oppose the officer’s recommendations which will make the change largely impotent – and result in a few cosmetic alterations and do nothing to stop infill development occurring at same rate as previously. Plan Change was formulated as a result of many inputs from different community sources & identified many concerns residents has regarding the damage infill development was inflicting on their neighbourhood & quality of life & they wanted it stopped or severely reduced. Requested that plan change be approved and the concerns of strident, self-interested minority who have little regard for the city as a whole or its residents not be taken into account. 1.5.21 D Truscott & G Revill Infill increases the amount of housing development – increases density. Need to look at the city as a whole and encourage infill development. Higher density housing – design & landscaping become more critical. It is possible to produce good high density housing – NZ does not have a tradition of good urban design. Intensification is supported by the ARC policy statement, particularly around transport nodes – plan change is contrary to this. Intensification means higher densities & smaller urban footprint – reduces travel, improves the conditions for successful public transport & reduces car journeys – sustainable urban design & should be encouraged. An issue raised in the plan change is the need for better urban design outcomes for development. Possible to have a poor design outcome on a larger site as people tend to build the maximum allowed. Rather than increasing the min lot size, might be more productive on sites of less than 450 sqm to increase the width of side yards or reduce height if there are concerns about the effects on adjoining owners. Support changing rules to improve residential amenity but oppose the proposal. High boundary walls & garages in front yards are flagged as producing unwanted effects – but the plan change proposes controls on the location of garages and not boundary walls. 1m set back rule is onerous & may not produce a better design outcome. New garage setback increases the depth of the front yard & increases the impermeable area of more driveways. May be little visual benefit if a 1.8m high wall is constructed. The form of the front boundary wall is the issue. As proposed PC 17 would discourage forms of development that are elements of the existing heritage character of the Res 3 zone – which includes rear lot development & small lots. The changes affecting the Res 3 zone should be postponed and coordinated with the heritage plan change. 1.5.22 D Campbell Opposing PC 17 – for two reasons – financial hardship & regional perspective. Purchase property of $780k – 2 dwellings were permitted & this was reflected in the price paid. PC 17 reduces development potential to 1 dwelling and reduces market value to around $600k. At the regional level there is a need to maintain existing density around town centres and on transport routes. Increase in urban sprawl & effect of environmental problems over wider area. Existing areas become more valuable and prices will skyrocket. 1.5.23 S Dietsch – for MO Field Supports controls on infill housing but garages closer to the road are not an issue. Against the 50% of width control even with control flexibility. Support the suggested removal of that part of the plan change which required garage doors to be set back 1m beyond the dwelling. Believe that provision 16.6.1.7.iii) is a repeat of provision 16.6.1.7 – they both require garages or carports to be setback 5m from the front boundary. No provision is made in rule 16.6.1.4 for control flexibility relating to the width of garages – the control flexibility only concerns the distance the building is from the front boundary.

11

Believe that the control flexibility provisions relating to rule 16.6.1.4 Front Yards should contain a reference to garages/carports rather than continuing to rely on the term building – could be achieved by including the words “including garages/carports” in brackets following the word building in control flexibility.. There are suggested assessment criteria to consider a relaxation to the 50% provision but no provision for such relaxation. Seek that control flexibility be introduced to rule 16.6.1.4 for garages and carports to exceed 50% of the width of the house to which they relate. In terms of the proposed assessment criteria – visual contact with the street is dependant on the design of the dwelling, slope, fencing & vegetation can totally remove views from a dwelling to the street – the inclusion of this aspect of the assessment criteria is illogical and should be deleted. The use of the word width in rule 16.6.1.7.i) will catch 2 level buildings with full width basement garaging – need a proviso in Rule 16.6.17 i) noting that buildings with habitable or living rooms located above garages which have windows overlooking the street are exempt from this provision. 1.5.24 S Dietsch – for G Bennison Support the retention of minor residential units with the exception of assessment criteria 16.7.2.23d) – which requires parking associated with mru’s to have onsite reverse manoeuvring. Inconsistent & unjustifiable to require parking associated with mru’s to have on-site manoeuvring while residential development on the same site at a larger scale does not. Oppose the change to control flexibility for the other yards. Of the view that Commissioners lack jurisdiction to grant relief sought by submission 90.2. Plan Change leaves all of rule 16.6.1.5 intact – just adds no control flexibility for infill development. Any person considering the plan change would not have formed the opinion that rule 16.6.1.5b) was proposed to be altered or deleted – therefore conclude that the Commissioners only have jurisdiction to consider whether or not the control flexibility provisions of Rule 16.6.1.5 should be altered. Suggested approach – convoluted & unworkable – if the fire provisions require a 1.5m set back from boundaries the there is no reason to duplicate it. Distinction between in-fill development as opposed to redevelopment is arbitrary and will most likely be circumvented. This part of the plan change should therefore be abandoned. 1.5.25 R Andrews Supports the need to address a number of the current rules, assessment criteria and policies associated with the control of development within the residential zones of the city. Notes that the 600sqm recommendation for minor residential units effectively takes the approach back to pre 1994 situation & also overcomes the permitted baseline argument. Might also need to consider controlling associated accessory buildings space/buildings with minor residential units and a lower height limit or limit them to single storey height to eliminate dominance, privacy effects. There should not be any control flexibility – issue needs to be black & white – if you don’t comply with the criteria should be non complying second unit on site, assessment criteria are too vague to be able to decline applications. Only exemption to this could be to cover dependant relatives. Problem to date with dependent relatives has been the lack of ability to monitor statutory declarations. If they are defined as mru’s then we are accepting them as poor quality units not complying with the usual amenity standards on the basis that it is a dependent relative who shares the site amenity with the main family – unlikely to enforce their removal under this scenario. Alternative is to reintroduce the definition of temporary minor residential unit (as a controlled activity allowing an encumbrance to be placed on the title) to cover the needs of the dependent relative which will allow for easier enforcement as the previous grant of consent was not for a mru. Over many years, the visual quality of the Res 2B zone has been eroded during redevelopment – although a large minimum density and lot size of 600 sqm prevents the infill development common with the Res 4 zones, the development rules for buildings within the Res 2 zones are identical to those in Res 4. Therefore where new development maximises the coverage provisions of the plan, the proportion of space to accommodate trees and maintain a more spacious environment will not be achieved at a level above that of the conventional Res 4 zones. The way to better achieve the particular policies that are set down for the Res 2B & 2C zones is to lower the building coverage to 30% net site area – otherwise the city continues with the policy of larger sites = larger dwellings.

12

Support a savings clause for the Res 4A zones. Important to maintain that for 2 units in Res 4B, 450sqm per unit is necessary – this is important as it is the key distinction between the Res 4A & 4B sub zones – if not maintained there will be a release of land for further infill development housing in Birkenhead & East Coast Bays areas – those peripheral areas of the city where infill should be better controlled. Reservation over the easier Res 4A option of controlled activity for a vacant site – may lead to the increased demolition/relocation of older homes which provide an important and consistent character for many Res 4 areas – prefer limited discretionary. Allowing subdivision in Res 4A below 450 sqm without a land use consent first being approved – lack of certainty if you allow small lots to be created but the house requires a limited discretionary activity consent that potentially could be declined. Agree with the recommendation for intensive housing in the Res 2A zone – it is the 500sqm density limit encouraging apartments that has been the problem & the proposed 1/800sqm should address this. There will be difficulties dealing with the proposed assessment criteria “compatibility with adjacent residential areas” as inherently the definition of apartments as a building with 2 or more units is most likely to be incompatible to begin with – suggest that terrace housing is typically more compatible than apartments and could be substituted for apartments. “Excluding the proviso for delineated area boundaries, that where neighbours consent is obtained that development within side or rear yards can occur as a permitted development” – this suggestion is an easier means of achieving the main purpose of the change – to prevent a developer providing their own neighbours consent to allow development in a future side and rear yard. Can be overcome by removing the neighbours written approval proviso for the situation of delineated boundaries – this forces delineated yard infringements into a resource consent as a limited discretionary activity for assessment as to their suitability. Changes to rules that now cover all decks & balconies not supported as it will have a profound effect on the quality of architectural design for infill housing and to the detriment of good functionality. Agreed that privacy from the main glazing & decks of all living rooms or rooms used for a like purpose should be controlled in regards to a neighbouring dwelling and its primary outdoor living space. Deck rules are too restrictive and should not apply to decks unless associated with these main lounge/living areas. With a tightening of these rules and assessment criteria, control flexibility should remain where the rule is infringed and neighbours consent has not been obtained. Introduction of a gradient control for living courts in some situations may promote excessive site works or tree removal. For clarity the rule should include the words “finished gradient” As a compromise it is suggested that the gradient control only apply to the area of the 6m diameter circle therefore seeking some useable area while retaining flexibility for the more unusual sites. Support the removal of the control flexibility for living court areas and dimensions. Only reservation is that it may create design problems for intensive housing projects where apartment & terrace house designs if pushed into a non complying status will likely have a more difficult processing route. Most of the successful Res 6 intensive housing projects have required some flexibility in the provision of living courts space – the quality of the overall architecture, urban design & site layout is far more important than strict compliance with the standard. Concerns raised by the extent and number of vehicle crossings associated with infill housing has primarily occurred since 1994 change to the definition of site under the North Shore City Plan – by recognising delineated areas as individual sites for which each could as of right have their own vehicle crossing has seen a proliferation of crossings with minimal control. Support the direction for limits on infill subdivision and development crossings so that the vehicle crossing standards effectively apply to the parent site prior to its further subdivision or development. Controls on vehicle crossings must also be seen as an aesthetic control of the quality of the public streetscape and not driven solely by traffic considerations – controls prevent excessive hard surfaces & the retention of grass berm space and space for healthy street tree plantings – help with permeability and creating an aesthetically pleasing public area. Proposed criteria on the practicalities of sharing an existing crossing should read “additional crossings will not be granted where there is a practical option to share an existing crossing”. Issue of child safety was raised where crossings are shared. 1m garage setback behind front face of dwelling rule is fraught with interpretational difficulties – definition of front face & how width is measured. Been an inconsistency in the way the Council has applied the rules to garages within the front yard over the life of the plan.

13

Suggest that 1m behind the front face rule be deleted as unworkable, further that the garage door setback rule would be more usable if it stated “the garage door must be set back at least 5m where it faces the street boundary”. Have reservation about the 50% rule. Agree with the increase in min lot size to 450 sqm in the Res 3A zone to be consistent with Res 4 zone. Savings clause should be limited to between Oct 1994 & 6 April 2006. Consider that rear sites should remain in Res 3 zones & a min net site are of 500-600 sqm is suggested. Not appropriate to completely remove expected development rights for those owners of properties where there is plenty of space to develop full sized rear sites. Questioned whether the change to the status of single units in the zone to limited discretionary was outside the scope of the plan change. 1.5.26 A Watson Concerned with the permissive and generous approach to the provision for minor residential units in the North Shore City District Plan. Seeks that Council take a stricter approach to allowing minor residential units based on the problems experienced – amenity & infrastructure. Submission supports the proposed plan change to delete minor residential units as permitted activities. Aware that North Shore City is regarded as having an urban area of high amenity. This is based on its coastal location and the nature of development comprising largely residential development in a lower density form. Of the view that we should seek to retain that rather than destroying or seriously diminishing that amenity through closer forms of residential development. Noted that intensification of residential development at key nodes and along corridors, rather than forms of infill development, is more in keeping with the Regional Growth Strategy. Minor residential units in existing residential areas have been demonstrated to have an adverse impact on these established areas. Minor residential units have resulted in additional built form, loss of open space & associated activities such as cars, access. Impact of additional housing diminishes amenity. The difference between a minor residential unit and a second dwelling was minor. If Council did not support minor residential units as non complying activities – the next best approach would be to make them discretionary in all residential zones. In his view, it is difficult to differentiate the impacts of minor residential units based on the size of the site – this was a simplistic approach. Most effective way to then deal with them would be to make them all discretionary activities so that Council would have the opportunity to consider effects upon amenity and infrastructure and also other matters that require reasonable consideration such as privacy before such development is allowed in existing residential neighbourhoods. Agree with the recommendation that the size be reduced to 60 sqm and that there be no control flexibility that enables an increase in size. 1.5.27 G. Jeddo Bought house in Coronation Road in Jan 2002 – Res 4A, 850 sqm. Wanted to subdivide & build another house at a later date. In 2004 decided to look into options of building a house & employed a surveyor. Prepared plans for subdivision consent, because the section was below 450 sqm, a resource consent was required. For financial issues, the project was put on hold. In March 2006, approval for a loan to build the house was obtained. A lot of money has been spent to date & consent has already been lodged. One of the issues was the unfairness – bought land, hoping to build in the future. Should be a “phase in “ opportunity – of 1-2 years for plan changes. Plan change reduced property values. Density of population is increasing – reducing the density will push people out further. Similar infill development has occurred in the neighbourhood. Discussed the cost of resource consents and the lack of certainty of outcomes. Providing for minor residential units does not work effectively if there are not good controls in place. Council is responsible for looking at the big picture.

14

MRU’s should be excluded from special character zones and discretionary activity in Res 4A & 4B if they are going to be provided for. Doesn’t work as a permitted activity. 70 sqm unit and carport/garage is just like another house on the site. 1.5.28 Cornerstone Group – T Sinclair (tabled written submission) Cornerstone Group submitted on Plan Change 17 seeking more flexibility to amalgamate and comprehensively develop suitable Res 4 zoned sites and to reduce the criteria that related to stormwater mitigation. Opportunity has been missed with the Plan Change – does not provide for large scale comprehensive redevelopment of blocks in the Res 4 zone beyond the density limits. Many areas of the city where existing sites could be amalgamated, cleared and redeveloped in accordance with sound urban design principles – such sites and developments may suit intensity higher than currently provided for. Existing Res 4 amenity controls – yard setbacks, outdoor living space, HIRB, service courts etc need not apply when multiple units are proposed with communal living controls, or access to public amenity, providing alternatives to what the current District Plan standards identify are suitable for freestanding houses. Plan Change has associated medium to high density residential with low amenity but this is not always the case. Small scale opportunistic redevelopment that does not maximise a site’s opportunities, or is restricted by existing houses needs to be avoided. The ability for developers to acquire and redevelop multiple sections in suitable locations in a manner that strives for design excellence needs to be strengthened. Additional intensity also reduces the pressure on the MUL and assists NSCC in accommodating its fair share of Auckland’s growth. Achieved by creating as a Discretionary Activity “residential development of vacant sites greater than 2500sqm that exceed the density requirements of rule 16.6.2.3” Existing assessment criteria for intensive residential development should apply, with an additional bullet point being “Location and design” as follows:

• Located on a site suitable for the proposed intensity; • Located on a site that is uniform in shape with sufficient dimensions, and that creates a logical

development block’; • In close proximity to public amenities and/or public transport; • Designed to maximise opportunities/constraints of a site while reducing any impact on overlooking

neighbouring properties; • On vacant sections that do not need to respond to constraints created by existing on-site buildings; • Supported by qualified urban designer.

A site of 2500sqm or greater provides opportunity for a comprehensive design, and is of a scale that would generally only be contemplated by experienced and well resourced developer who understands the importance of urban design and the inherent risks of a discretionary activity. Cornerstone reserves the right to argue on any stormwater issues as part of the proposed Citywide Plan Change in 2007. 1.5.29 D Collett Agree with the intension of Plan Change 17 in certain circumstances. “Dog-boxes” detract from the North Shore, but the horse has already bolted. Limiting further subdivision in the Res 3 zones – initiated by the Devonport Community Board, but does not (should not) apply to Birkenhead where there are still some significant areas of land to be subdivided. Trying to do a subdivision of a 3000 sqm lot – duplicate what is already on the adjoining property. Even after subdivision, the lots sizes will be in excess of 800 sqm. Subdivision of property is more preferable than other types of development occurring in the city. Personal situation & health reasons had necessitated the subdivision of property as well as additional income in old age. Spent over $10,000 marketing the property but as a result of the doubt arising from PC 17, the deals had fallen through. Trying to obtain approval for subdivision under existing rules – process is costly - $15,000 and time consuming.

15

1.5.30 A Houston – GJ Gardner Homes GJ Gardner Homes are the second largest builder of homes in North Shore City with 50 homes per year. Notes that a lot of older homes were on 809 sqm sections which would now not be able to be subdivided and developed. Common approach is to remove the existing older home and build 2 new townhouses. Proposed change knocks out 95% of land – most of which are 809 sqm sections. Rule requiring the setback of garages on front lots – difficult to comply with as sections are getting smaller and garages are pushed to the front of the lot with no room to have them at the back. Most of GJ Gardner’s home designs were designed for what the client wanted rather than ‘standard designs”. Land was now so expensive that house designs needed to be site and client specific. Internationally, Auckland is not a dense city – therefore need smaller lots and better design. As a result of lifestyle changes, people no longer wanted large properties. Commented that the common practice of dwellings being built on a concrete slab was to achieve good indoor/outdoor flow. 1.5.31 P Anderson Purchased a house in Northcote over 10 years ago which was zoned Res 4A and had development potential. Had plans drawn up for a house at the rear of the property but couldn’t afford to proceed. In Jan 2006, building consent for a double carport with deck over and vehicle access ramp was granted. Plans for the second dwelling lodged with Council in July 2006. Proposed dwelling does not infringe any of the rules apart from a height in relation to boundary rule but the affected neighbours have given their consent. Under the Plan Change the Council have requested neighbours consent – been unable to obtain the consent of one of the neighbours. Views on infill housing are that the minimum lot size should be controlled when the land is originally subdivided; the value of houses today means the modern infill house is energy efficient and fully landscaped and adds value to the neighbourhood; it is too late in the area as most of the subdividable land has been developed; can’t change the character of residential areas by legislating lot size changes; the Council already has the ability to change poorly designed proposals through the resource consent and building consent process; increasing min lot sizes is likely to encourage larger buildings not higher levels of amenity; character of most Res 4A areas has been significantly changed in the last 12 years so to prevent one party from subdividing when a neighbour has done the same earlier is unreasonable; the change will have a negative effect on North Shore City residents, affecting affordability, value of existing properties, infill housing would be replaced by high rise apartments, loss of cash flow in development levies and reserve contributions to improve local amenities and infrastructure. Therefore disagree with changing the existing Res 4A min lot size from 350 sqm to 450 sqm. 1.5.32 Penticton - C Russell Submission specifically relates to 264 Forrest Hill Road. Notes that there was no notice or consultation about the plan change. Notes that the majority of submitters were opposed to the plan change and officer recommendations suggested changes – this weight of opinion should be taken into account. Had plans to subdivide, then the Plan Change was notified. Like some relief to site specific applications to reflect time, effort (including seeking neighbours consent). Objects to the plan change, would like to see operative plan to remain in force. As a result of planning advice – had changed plans to meet neighbours concerns & Council requirements. Needs 20sqm from the accessway to enable proposal to work. One neighbours consent to be obtained. Questioned what happens under the officer’s recommendation if an existing house is relocated on the same site. Of the view that there were already sufficient controls in place under the existing plan to ensure the appropriate and sympathetic development when subdivision occurs in residential areas. The fact that 90% of sites available have already been subdivided – seems little benefit to the community with such a change – the horse has already bolted. For their own site – they have engaged a range of professionals, communicated with neighbours.

16

Specifically object to the proposed deletion of the existing clause allowing up to 20 sqm of an entrance strip to be included in 350 sqm. Request proposal be allowed to continue as a controlled activity & consideration be given to the efforts under the previous planning rules. Dramatic change to the rules without prior notice is unfair and unreasonable – should have a sunset clause at least. Proposed change impacts on land values and property owners rights and would be ineffective and inefficient use of resources. Development by small lot owners requires them to take into consideration their immediate community as they wish to enhance the site and the surrounds rather than detract from them. Small scale development uses the land more efficiently and encourages people to reside in North Shore City and its current urban footprint which is beneficial to the city better utilisation and more efficient use of resources while assisting in reducing the demand for greenfields development on city edge or green belt. 1.5.33 K Benfell, R Benfell, R Hawes - J Hudson Clients submissions relate to various provisions of Proposed Plan Change 17 as they affect a property jointly owned by them at 11 Rodney Road, Northcote. Property is located in Res 3B zone and the site has an area of 1290 sqm and is occupied by a 1914 dwelling close to the street. The plan change makes the subdivision of rear lots a non-complying activity and alters the status of two or more dwellings to non complying. Combined effect is to prevent any further complying development of the site. Reasons for the submissions are: The plan change will not promote the sustainable management of resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing; Section 32 is misdirected and the objective is not the most appropriate way of achieving the purpose of the Act; The policies and rules are not the most appropriate for achieving the objective; Zoning currently permits 500 sqm lots which would enable the rear land to be developed for a single dwelling & the site is physically capable of accommodating another dwelling; This type of development has taken place on all adjoining boundaries in the wider area; It is unreasonable to not provide for rear lots - unreasonable to require the owners to maintain a substantial area of open space within their property for the benefit of neighbours who have already subdivided, inconsistent with the character and amenity values of the area; inefficient use of the land resource, unnecessary for the purpose of achieving the proposed policy of maintaining the visual record of earlier settlements, too uncertain and costly; Proposed restriction will have insufficient environmental benefit to outweigh the adverse consequence of a few property owners who still have large lots capable of subdivision; Further development in the Res 3 zone, subject to compliance with existing controls on density is necessary to enable people to have a choice of living environments. Agree with the statement (in officers report) that further subdivision in accordance with the min net site areas for the zone on these sites and existing rear sites can be undertaken with no more than minor adverse effects and in a manner that is not contrary to what the plan is seeking to achieve. Accordingly, the rule is not the most appropriate for achieving the objective, having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness & the benefits of removing the potential for subdivision are clearly not significant but the costs to individuals affected are considerable. 1.5.34 K Benfell 11 Rodney Road has been the home of the Benfell’s since 1941. Over the past 20 years there have been many changes in the street and the two properties on either side of 11 Rodney Road have been developed with three houses and two with both properties needing concessions from 11 Rodney Road. Further down Rodney Road there has been even more intensive development. Change in Council policy has deterred prospective purchasers. Wish to sell the property knowing it can be utilised for its full potential and/or development. Size of the property would lend itself to either 2 units or the existing house and a further dwelling. Both would be of a generous size and not erode the character of the area. There are few properties left in Northcote Point that can be used for further development.

17

1.5.35 C Prendergast Believes that the process Council has followed has not been sufficiently robust and justification of the change remains inadequate and flawed in some areas. Noted that the RMA requires the adverse effects of activities on the environment to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The duty to consider alternatives under Section 32 requires the Council to justify the provisions of the District Plan as being the most appropriate means of achieving the purpose of the Act in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. PC 17 was promoted as a result of issues and concerns relating to the size and design of infill housing developments and the effect of such development on the character of the city’s neighbourhoods. However, the amendments proposed focus on the issue of density, with few addressing aspects of design, size or location of buildings on the site. Acknowledged that good design is subjective, and neither easy to define or to regulate but that means it is necessary to consider alternative means to achieve the desired ends. Notes that the concerns were similar to those addressed in Plan Change 1 which related to intensive housing. That change included objectives and policies, assessment criteria. A similar approach for infill development had not been undertaken. Supported the recommendations in respect of minor residential units except would prefer to see the activity status controlled, but oppose the proposed relaxation of some of the development controls where minor residential units are to be used for family members. The effects of MRU’s relate to the building itself, with associated traffic, access, landscaping and amenity effects dependant on the size, location and design of the building and the topography of the site. The effects of a MRU housing a dependant relative were therefore no different from those used by a complete stranger and differentiation of the controls on that basis can’t be justified. Concerns relate to the very permissive control flexibility provisions which have led to non-rigorous application of the plan controls. Of the view that there should be no control flexibility in respect of MRU’s. Concerns relate to a lack of guidance within the District Plan Understands that the effects of infill development are poor. Plan Change does not necessarily address the effects of development. Recommendations in respect of min lot sizes in Res 4A & 4B zones generally supported. Assessment criteria referring to desired future character as described in an approved structure plan or similar document is void for uncertainty – no way of identifying the desired future character at one point in time. May be no structure plan for sites – neither developers nor decision makers are given any guidance or certainty & decisions will continue to be made on an ad hoc basis. Amendments to the definition of parent lot/site and consequential amendments are vague & ambiguous. Opposed the retention of control flexibility in Res 4B zone that effectively allows an average area – will not address the concerns identified in the background report. Suggest the deletion of the existing objectives and policies in residential zones where these are written as methods or Council actions. 1.5.36 M Norton Has lived at 18A Hauraki Road. A long term Takapuna resident. Felt that his part of the city had been degraded by infill housing. Still has a reasonably large section. Welcomed Plan Change 17, but trouble with planning was that is was too complicated. Council needs to focus on whether infill has reached the point where it was detrimental to amenity and environment. Detail then follows – does it enhance the changes or does it make it easier or preserve the status quo. In Plan Change 17, the Res 4A and 4B zones are proposed to be amalgamated – 450 sqm. Houses have got bigger and sections smaller – 350 sqm is too small. Small sections are not suitable for families. You will hear from people affected personally or commercial developers who will naturally resist the changes. Public good lies with restrictions – which should proceed as is.

18

There is still strong concern from people about infill, but you will only get people who are directly affected submitting. Worthwhile fighting at the Environment Court – looking after the city as a whole. 1.5.37 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd, Buildcorp Investment Ltd, Buildcorp Management Ltd, Yessam Investments Ltd, McLellan Family Trust, JoelFlo Trust, MC & Mrs M Couch - J Hook Guidelines need to be referred to in the District Plan, training of staff. Assessment criteria can refer to design guidelines. Train processing staff so they have the confidence to go back to applicants (which haven’t met the standards) and require notification because the design is poor or to negotiate amendments to the proposal. Often comes down to how the words in the plan are implemented. Design guidelines may encourage better solutions to be put forward, don’t want to discourage innovation. Noted that other Council’s in the region had looked at what the appropriate standard of development that the city wanted to achieve. There was good justification for the plan change, but to revise densities in one zone was dangerous – this issue needs to be looked at across the city as a whole. Managing growth – in town centres and nodes was a big challenge. Combining Res 4A & 4B zones and increasing min lot size is considered to be unnecessary and not justified in terms of purpose & principles of the RMA. Combining the zones fails to recognise & protect the existing character and amenity of sub-zones and would not facilitate the sustainable management of these areas. May affect the ability of first home owners & limited income groups to provide for their housing needs, larger lots do not encourage efficient use of the remaining urban land, may result in larger dwellings & not necessarily result in good design and outcomes. Affects the ability to provide for growth within NSC & contradicts the RPS. Reduces the number of sites available for infill development & additional controls , design guidelines and assessment criteria for infill subdivision may assist in achieving higher quality design and outcomes for infill development. Recommended modified version of the status quo was acceptable to the submitter. Proposed deletion of mru’s would fail to achieve sustainable management of natural and physical resources – fail to provide diverse range of housing, reduce housing affordability, eliminate the ability to provide independent accommodation for family members & home & income, remove the opportunity to construct a mru on the Couch property at 8 Hillcrest Ave. Support recommendation & on smaller sites can appreciate why consent is required, support the proposal to enable outdoor living, service court and parking requirements to be relaxed where mru is to be utilised by family members. No justification for reducing size of mru – not necessary when the discretionary activity consent is introduced for sites less than 600 sqm. Existing control flexibility provisions under clause 16.6.2.4 provide opportunity to consider applications where it is not possible to meet the strict area & dimension requirements for outdoor living space due to physical or topographical constraints of the site. Recommend changes address the submitters concerns. Problems with separation distance between dwellings have arisen where developers have granted themselves consent to reduce an internal yard – thereby resulting in minimal separation distances and the creation of low amenity areas between units within certain developments. Amendments recommended, in particular the retention of control flexibility provisions satisfy the majority of concerns raised by submitters. Existing rule 16.6.1.4 relate to garages & carports located within the front yard setback – each application can be assessed on its merits, no need to change the status quo. Consider that the modifications in the recommendations would be appropriate in order to clarify the acceptable position of garages within the residential zones. 1.5.38 CM Couch Owns 8 Hillcrest Ave. Described existing development in the neighbourhood –11 /14 residential properties on the western side of Hillcrest Ave already have 2 residential units. On eastern side of Hillcrest – 7/15 properties remain with a single dwelling.

19

Hillcrest Ave – between Ocean View Road & Sylvia Road – 10/30 residential properties have single dwelling. Adoption of PC 17 would prohibit any future development at 8 Hillcrest. Auckland pop is growing by 18,000 a year, need to increase housing densities, Hillcrest is an established bus route, no sense to prohibit further increase in density, aging pop creates continuing demand for smaller residential units. 1.5.39 K Wang In 2004 bought property with the intension of subdividing in the future as it had an area of 860 sqm and was zoned Res 4A. In 2005 the process of subdivision was initiated with up to 3 different designs prepared and discussions with the subdivision team. The plans were thwarted when Plan Change 17 was publicly notified because the property is too small to achieve two lots of 450 sqm. 1.5.40 Thurlow Consultants – M. Hatten Of the view that minor residential units do not increase the potential built form – that is controlled by building coverage and permeable area rules. Encourage council to recognise the benefit and desirability for mru’s to society particularly in respect of the cost and variety of housing. Support the recommendation in regard to 600 sqm threshold, 60 sqm lot size and stricter enforcement of existing development controls. Recommend that Council reconsider the restriction on the future subdivision of mru’s – subdivision around existing development is about ownership not density, restrict changes in scale to be no greater than that of the parent lot by encumbrance on the title, prohibition of additional mru’s based on the underlying capacity of parent lot, enforced by encumbrance on the title, ensure units are independent i.e. separated services, screening, fencing, no communal living areas. Support the recommendations for Res 4A & 4B zones, particularly in regard to the retention of the existing min lot sizes and the abolition of the requirement for concurrent land uses – many designs are hypothetical and will never be built. Definition of net site area and delineated area need to be made consistent to avoid conflict between subdivision and land use processes. Support the status quo for intensive residential development in the Res 2A zone – 1/550 sqm is an incentive for people to protect vegetation. Support the recommendations to relax the 6m separation down to 3m. Don’t support use of side and rear yards – these push development into the middle of the site, zero lot yards are more appropriate and enable useable space. Support the gradient control relating to only part of the open space. However, if the requirement is to only relate to the area contained by the 6m circle then it would seem more practical to require this area to be substantially level (1:20). The requirement that 5m setback be provided in situations where a garage faces a street effectively doubles the onsite parking requirement with an associated increase in impermeable surface and reduction in available living space. Urban character relates to design, not dimension and reiterate that they seek preservation of the status quo with regards to the setback of garages from the street frontage. More emphasis should be placed on assessment criteria and design guidelines as prescriptive rules will not achieve what the Council is after. Encourage Council to liaise with groups such as the Institute of Surveyors to have input into plan changes. Urban character of many suburbs could be dramatically improved by enhancements within the road corridor – planting and underground services. 1.5.41 E. Henderson Interest in the plan change is as a resident of NSC and the owner of a property which contains both a major house and a minor dwelling. Endorses many of the findings in the officer’s report. Acknowledges the issues faced by Council – poor living environments from siting, loss of vegetation, size of accessory buildings, servicing and enforceability.

20

Principal interest is in retaining the ability to have a minor residential unit in conjunction with a major dwelling as an important housing option. To retain that option by way of a non complying resource consent is not acceptable. Related interest is in ensuring that the environmental performance standards are adequate to obtain good site amenity. This should be the focus with little opportunity to compromise on those requirements. Agrees that substituting for the loss of minor residential units with an opportunity to place a kitchen within an existing dwelling; to apply a statutory declaration on the life of its use and top wave or modify amenity standards – enforcement issues and difficulty with future proofing. Only way to ensure adequate amenity standards is to future proof – planning should be certain and enforceable and the kitchen proposal as it stands, as a substitute for a minor dwelling is neither. Minor residential units should be retained as a permitted activity and a full array or environmental/amenity requirements retained without control flexibility – may not need additional control through a minimum lot size. Adherence to the amenity requirements could dictate the lot size. Thrust of the RMA would be retained. If a minor residential unit is performing in accordance with the required environmental amenity standards then it should not matter how the dwelling is held in land tenure terms. A stand alone minor dwelling could therefore be subdivided off if desired without adverse environmental effects. Registration on the title would be the practical way of ensuring the minor residential unit is retained following subdivision. Personally find 60 sqm of internal space adequate and comfortable but acknowledges that as a transitional house or first home for 2 adults and a baby, 65 sqm could be desirable. No need in view to go beyond a single floor for such dwellings. Support a limit on the area of accessory buildings and these should be tied in part to covered parking. Were the Council to see the need to retain a min lot size for a major and minor dwelling then of the view that it should be somewhat larger than 600 sqm and less than 900 sqm. Council needs to balance its planning aim to increase density, with inadequate servicing capacity in older areas and to design for such capacity in newer areas. Minor dwellings as a permitted activity should not have the effect of making the major dwelling non-complying in any respect as a result of subsequent subdivision. If you get the environmental amenity performance standards right then there is no need for the draconian step of making minor residential units non complying. 1.5.42 M & J Fairgray Submission is a matter of great importance. Adverse effects of the proposed rule preventing rear lots – relatively few other people are affected. Only a few neighbours would benefit. Property is on the waterfront in Devonport and not visible from any streets. Originally subdivided in 1883 and has not been subdivided since. There are 12 surrounding households, half are infill homes over the last 50 years on large original plots. Neighbours don’t expect the situation to continue – there is sufficient space on the property for 2-3 additional dwellings amongst the native and fruit trees. All restrictions increase the difficulty of development. Wish to retain the ability to subdivide in the future, to keep options open. 1.5.43 RWS & AA Ritsma & RDM Consultants & CW Ritsma Described his proposal at 6 Hauraki Crescent. Proposed development is compromised by PC 17 – paid $20k for driveway and stormwater. Potentially can’t develop the rear of his property. Officer’s report would enable subdivision to 350 sqm. Believed that there was a conflict in Section 9 with the development provisions. Evidence is based on the view that there is a need to keep policies, objectives and rules as simple as possible & need to ensure that there is a reasonable balance between the rights of property owners & neighbours. Proposed PC 17 is attack on property owners & their development rights. Turned the intent of the District Plan on its head – flexible housing provision, housing choice & housing affordability.

21

Will not promote sustainable management and enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. Proposed increase in land area required by household units is contrary to the RPS. Last 10% of lots can not be significant in terms of effect on amenities but is on individual property rights. No need to change any of current policies and rules relating to Res 4 zone. It is not density that is the problem but the manner in which Council has dealt with bulk and location requirements. Explanation and Reasons should be replaced with “ the development features associated with a reduction in neighbourhood amenity is often linked to multiple bulk and location encroachments associated with developments in and around existing dwellings. For this reason, infill housing projects which require approvals for bulk and location approvals will be processed as a Limited Discretionary Application”. Activity table needs to be changed to read 1-5 units, because there may single sites less than 450 sqm which need to be developed as a controlled activity. Density needs to be amended to reflect the activity table – should not differentiate between vacant or occupied sites. Proposed changes to delineated area are unnecessary and current provisions should remain. In respect of building design & layout, paragraph iv) should be deleted because the rule is too vague and lacks certainty. Support proposed changes to separation distance – this is very much an amenity issue as it provides a visual break to the bulk of the building. Proposed changes to visual privacy are not opposed, however when there are provisions that allow waiving of requirements on the basis of adjoining owner agreement, the district plan should provide for control flexibility. Discussed permitted baseline and first in first served approach in relation to visual privacy. Visual privacy is primarily the responsibility of a property owner & is a design consideration that needs to be considered by the property owner. Rule changes that give a greater say to adjoining property owners in terms of changing activity status should be declined. Explained the proposal for 6 Hauraki Crescent – critical requirements that would allow site to be developed – density would need to remain at 350sqm, development would need to remain controlled, visual privacy and separation distances between units should not need to rely on neighbours approval. No difference between a vacant site and a site with an existing dwelling – the more restrictive activity status should not be based on the existence of a dwelling on site but on the basis that a development requires approval for bulk and location infringements as part of a development. Such an approach would provide an incentive to comply with bulk and locations controls. Amend the approach so that the proposed development at 6 Hauraki Cres would be allowed as a stand alone subdivision allowing a 350sqm lot subdivision as a controlled activity & then developed as a controlled activity, or alternatively allow a second residential unit complying with the bulk and location requirements as a controlled activity together with a subsequent subdivision also as a controlled activity. Addition to policy 2 in 16.3.5 “including smaller dwellings on smaller sized lots” is not required as the development controls for yards and height in relation to boundary ensure that the dwelling size matches the size of the smaller lot. Addition to policy 4 restricting the permitted activity status for mru’s to sites with 600sqm or larger – supported. Policy that would allow second kitchen or dishwashing facilities for the sole purpose of caring for a dependant relative – would place a burden on family who sought to care for dependant relatives. Current policy should be retained. Floor area restriction should be part of the definition of minor res unit & gross floor area should be increased to 65 sqm which represents a more practical min size. Gross floor area should exclude covered garages. Recommended the Auckland City definition of residential unit – means a building, room or a group of rooms, used, designed or intended to be used exclusively by one or more persons as a single, independent and separate household unit. 1.5.44 NZ Defence Force - Harrison Grierson Submitter owns land throughout North Shore City, predominantly in Res 4A & 4B zones in Northcote, Takapuna, Belmont, Bayswater & Devonport and also a large vacant site of 4.2 ha in area. Housing in these areas generally consists of single free standing “state” houses on large sections and medium density flats.

22

Declining standard of the housing stock has caused the submitter to consider partial or full site redevelopment in the short to medium term – directly affected by the plan change. Submitter’s primary & further submissions seek to ensure that redevelopment opportunities are not compromised & seek to reinstate the operative density provisions for Res 4A & 4B zones. Proposed plan change as notified fails to recognise its potential impact on landowners with large landholdings looking to redevelop in accordance with the existing environment. Large areas of Res 4A & 4B zones have been developed to a density of 350 sqm and 400 sqm respectively – therefore future activities that maintain the form, scale and intensity of this existing environment are appropriate. High levels of amenity can be achieved under the operative density provisions & it is evident that larger lot sizes typically lead to larger buildings with no more or no less regard for visual appearance or local amenity. Proposed change undermines the urban design advantages of comprehensive redevelopment – urban design best practice recognises advantages such as cohesion and integration achieved in multi unit developments as opposed to ad hoc urban form associated with piece meal development. Submitter supports officer recommendations as they are valid, practical and enforceable and meet the needs of the submitter. 1.5.45 Beta Properties Ltd - Harrison Grierson Submitter owns land in Birkenhead and a resource consent was lodged on 25 Aug 2006 for 14 lot subdivision and 40 residential apartments. Proposed subdivision includes 12 lots each with a minimum net site area of 450 sqm. Submitters land is located in Res 2A zone & the design of the apartments is based on 1/550 sqm. Proposed subdivision utilises existing cleared areas & the proposed development minimises any major disturbance to existing vegetation. Proposal also includes upgrading and protecting 1.4 ha of high quality bush which is to be made available for public use. Submitters land is an excellent example of a site in Res 2A zone that has adequate cleared areas for apartment style buildings while maintaining the bush setting of the locality. Submitter’s submission seeks to ensure that redevelopment opportunities and the current resource consent application are not compromised by the proposed plan change. Part of the proposed development of the site includes 12 new lots, each with a minimum net site area of 450 sqm. Density of lots reflects adjacent Res 4A zoned land & this area of the site is completely clear of vegetation and has a gradient of 1:5 which is suitable for residential development. Character of this part of the site is not consistent with its Res 2A zoning. Suitable alternative relief would be for the land containing proposed lots 1-12 to be rezoned to Res 4B to more accurately reflect the appearance, character and capacity for development. Deleting provision for apartments conflicts with accepted urban design principles relating to multi unit development that assist in achieving cohesive built form and integrated living environments. Proposed change fails to recognise that high levels of amenity can be achieved at high densities – should be seeking to strengthen assessment criteria for consideration of urban design in larger scale developments rather than imposing unnecessary density restrictions. Proposed change also conflicts with the ARPS which encourages higher density living within existing urban centres. Submitter supports officer recommendation to amend assessment criteria because it provides a stronger emphasis on design & supports recommendation to retain provision for apartments in the Res 2A zone but does not support the recommended lower density of 1/800 sqm net site area. Advantages of Res 2A for higher density development – native bush provides a mature and established environment that has the capacity to mitigate adverse visual effects associated with higher densities and larger buildings. Regardless of the density, buildings are generally designed to the parameters set out by bulk and location controls – limiting the density is not achieving any less bulkier or intrusive buildings which is the reason given for lowering the density. As in the Res 4 zone, a lower density does not necessary result in better design or higher levels of amenity. Providing for apartments in the Res 2A zone without providing for the associated incentive for higher density is unreasonable – should retain the operative density provisions and encourage a more robust assessment criteria supported by guidelines on achieving better urban design.

23

1.5.46 Lane & Associates & S Mitchell - C. Lane Sought that provision be made for minor residential units as a limited discretionary activity – in this way Council would retain control over design, amenity and servicing concerns. Support the recommendations and consider them reasonable. Submission raised concerns in respect of the interpretation of under ground pipes in the Coastal Conservation Area – support the recommendation to clarify that the control relates to above ground stormwater infrastructure and pipes. Submission opposed changes to garages & carports. Of the view that the restrictions based on the Long Bay Structure Plan should not be applied city wide, they will create confusion in their application in the Res 3 zone where a 3m front yard generally applies. The deletion of some of the proposed rules is supported. Whilst the status quo is sought, acknowledge that there is provision as a limited discretionary activity to infringe the setback and width provisions. Support the planner’s analysis of the min lot size in the Res 4 zone, but do not concur with the conclusion reached that the construction of dwellings on sites with a minimum site area of 350 sqm in Res 4A on parent infill sites should be a limited discretionary activity. Believe there is no justification for changing the activity status from controlled activity & there does not appear to be any matters identified to which Council has discretion. Consider that the additional assessment criteria and design guidelines (as recommended) provide sufficient ‘tests’ for this use to be determined as a controlled activity. Of the view that the assumption that there is greater ability to achieve a better design outcome where there is a vacant site is simplistic and may potentially result in the needless demolition and removal of valuable housing stock in established residential areas and replacement dwellings that may not necessarily be of a comparable standard. Recommended changes are not in accordance with an effects based approach & the proposed distinction between development within an existing residential environment and in a newly developing area does not have validity. The effects sought to be achieved of good design can appropriately and effectively be determined through assessment criteria and design guidelines as a controlled activity. 1.5.47 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland - I McManus & E Lloyd Client is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland. The Bishop opposed the proposed increase to the minimum lot sizes for Res 4A & 4B zones on the basis that the response to the amenity issues was too simplistic and would not facilitate the sustainable management of natural and physical resources or achieve an appropriate balance between the amenity considerations and Council’s other legislative and social obligations. It is feasible to achieve a very high level of amenity at residential densities significantly in excess of the nominated standard of 1/450 in greenfields and brownfields situations where sites are developed or completely redeveloped using appropriate design. It is also possible to achieve a very high level of amenity in situations where buildings are proposed to be retained, but a substantial area of land remains to be developed. Cited a number of examples of good quality medium intensity greenfields and brownfields development to illustrate the point that higher density does not necessarily mean lower amenity. The amount of land available for open space is only one factor in providing amenity and lifestyle & not necessarily the most important – the quality of the space will be more significant than size for many people. Factors such as orientation, gradient, privacy, elevation, enclosure and views can have a much greater impact on the amenity offered than the quantum of open space. The quality of the design of buildings is therefore very important. Of the view that the key to the success of more intensive development within suburban areas is good design. Also of the view that there is greater likelihood of producing good design outcomes in greenfields and brownfields situations where one is completely redeveloping a site or where the land occupied by any buildings proposed for retention is a relatively small part of the total landholding available for development. The Bishop’s submission therefore asked for a distinction to be made between small scale infill development and greenfields and brownfields development, including large site greenfields/brownfields development where some of the existing buildings are retained. Supports the officer recommendation on the proviso that it is clear that controlled activity status applies to the entire development and not to a single dwelling.

24

It should be possible for large site developments to retain some existing dwellings or buildings without being elevated from controlled activity to a limited discretionary activity – this might be achieved for example by specifying that a certain percentage of the site e.g. 80% must be clear of existing buildings in order to qualify. Find the definition of infill confusing – particularly the manner in which the definition is already worded in the plan. Suggest – infill development means any development (other than greenfields/brownsfields development) where two or more units (excluding minor residential units) are located on the same lot or a newly subdivided parent lot. The success of the above provisions would be assisted by the adoption of a more rigorous urban design review process when applications are received. Adoption of recommendations and requested amendments will do more to support the sustainable management of natural and physical resources than the provisions as originally notified and will achieve a better balance between the range of factors relevant to the development of the Res 4 zones including regional growth considerations, the efficient use of the city’s valuable land resource, creation of an efficient transport system and the efficient use of energy and amenity of residents. 1.5.48 B Cuthbert & Devonport Heritage Agree with the concerns that have driven this plan change. Example of a site of 700 sqm with a small unit at the back – everyone is a loser – loss of trees, no one gets sunlight, private space and privacy are adversely affected. Example 2 –huge 5 bedroom dwellings pushing the max every time – that’s the reality we are facing. Issue of density – support 450 sqm lot size. Not just the built environment, stable environments, takes off some of the development pressure. Density, height, coverage, height in relation to boundary set the parameters – need to concentrate on these. There is a real difference between infill and greenfields development. Want to encourage the retention of existing houses. Policy in Res 3 zone – objective needs to change as well - not relevant to the objective that is there. For garages/carports – the rules in the plan are already very complex – don’t do anything until heritage review is completed. Notes that 56% of those competing survey forms wanted the rules relating to garages & carports tightened. Any additional rules will complicate the matter. Visual privacy – assessment criteria are difficult to apply – too much of the District Plan relies on assessment criteria and the wording is too loose. In a District Plan – less is more. 1.5.49 B Wilson Changes are putting people’s financial security at risk. Purchase property in Dec 2004 – price paid included a premium for the ability to subdivide the property. Have restored the original house. In the plans prepared, there is no evidence that 400 sqm for a house on the rear section is too small. Current rules have criteria and are perfectly adequate – questioned the need to change. As a result of the plan change and with application in the pipeline – had to go through the procedure of obtaining neighbours consent – questioned why neighbours have such an influence on legitimate activities. Council should announce property policy changes to take place from a future date with no immediate effect thus allowing owners to consider their options. 1.5.50 H & C Newman - W. Coste Own the property at 27 Stanley Point Road. Is zoned Res 3C and has an area of 4704 sqm. Described the current development of the property. Whilst the Newman’s do not plan to subdivide their property, they recognise that the latent development potential of the land is a major factor in its value. Property because of its size and location within the MUL is inappropriate to be restricted to a single dwelling – inconsistent with the urban consolidation objectives of the Regional Policy Statement.

25

Support officers recommendation as it is clear that larger properties can accommodate further development without adverse effects. Lodged a resource consent in Aug 2005 to extend the existing garaging at the front of the property to form additional garaging on the ground floor and a minor residential unit on the first. Consent was put on hold & the provisions of plan change raised two issues – the proposed minor residential unit is within a proposed accessory building, rather than the main dwelling & there is no definition of dependant relative. Support the officer’s recommendation – as it is considered that the size of the site is usually directly proportional to the ability for such land to accommodate additional development. It is considered that the restriction of the size of the minor residential unit is at odds with the approach taken for the size of the site – at some point, the size of the site will be such that a larger minor residential unit could be accommodated. Considered that control flexibility should be retained to deal with mru’s up to 70 sqm on sites 600 sqm and larger. There is a need to establish minor residential units within accessory buildings when there are heritage reasons for not undertaking an addition to the main dwelling. Newman’s supported the effective removal of the requirement to pay a financial contribution for development to accommodate relatives. Concerned at the level of open space reserve contribution. Support control flexibility for family members & consider that some flexibility may also be appropriate in relation to the payment of development contributions, particularly for relatively short term care of dependant relatives. 1.5.51 Forest and Bird - J Lewis Outlined examples of infill development within the city. Noted that there were inconsistencies in the zonings across North Shore City. Noted that in respect of MRU’s, rental properties have a different kind of effect from relatives living in such accommodation. Recommends that the proposed permitted activity status be a controlled activity. In the Res 2 zone, any infill from MRU’s be a discretionary activity. Under landform, vegetation and landscaping, exclude trees listed on the ARC plant pest schedule. Submits that min net site area in Res 4A & 4B be 400 sqm as a limited discretionary activity. Assessment criteria 16.7.2 e) iv should include location & redevelopment clause should be separate and a threshold limit for detailed project plan should be added. The difference between infill and brownfield should be defined and the potential for infill on small greenfield sites recognised. Submits that apartments be deleted from the Res 2A zone and become a non complying activity. Suggests that Council design some form of economic incentive to private landowners as recognition of their contribution to the maintenance of native vegetation and water quality in streams. Supports an increase in the min lot size in the Res 3A zone, that rear lots be available as a limited discretionary activity, applications for brownfield development be a discretionary activity and more than 2 dwellings or units be discretionary. Supports a full review of the District Plan. Branch supports the view that in many cases it has been the interpretation of current regulations by Commissioners rather than the regulations themselves that has resulted in the present patterns of land use. Plan change must be consistent with other parts of the District Plan and recent legislation affecting both the ARC & NSCC, in particular Plan Change 2, the review of the Res 2 zone, and Plan Change 12. Agreed that flexibility was needed to take cognisance of site peculiarities, but in the past minimums have been reduced, conditions relaxed so flexibility was pushed to the extremes. Discretionary powers require sound criteria with effects considered not only for immediate neighbours but also the wider community. Outlines perceptions and expectations by the wider community as expressed in the draft City Plan and by submitters. Stated that regulations needed to be logical, stated clearly and concisely, consistent to give certainty to all parties, and reflect desired outcomes. Outlined the changing nature of neighbourhoods and the factors behind such changes. Summarised those aspects of change which some submitters have found undesirable – more parked cars, loss of garden spaces, views, privacy, more rentals, more concrete & changing lifestyles – should also add impervious surfaces and poor streetscapes as a result of fencing.

26

Raised a number of questions relating to issues of potential character. The natural environment was the key focus of the Branch – it is not just an amenity issue but something to be viewed or habitats in which to encourage biodiversity. Need appropriate mechanisms to protect them. Environmental issues are not a matter of design only they are at the heart of the RMA and sustainable management. Impacts of high density housing on physical resources and infrastructure systems have not been sufficiently recognised and managed in the current residential zones. Issue of what better management is required for infill development. Notes that rising cost of rates and changing building methods are pushing landowners to subdivide land that was once considered marginal for housing – areas of regenerating vegetation, headwaters of major streams or steep slopes requiring earthworks. Range of possibilities means a better definition of infill development is required. Granny flats within a current residence, basement etc are not a permanent situation and in time are likely to become rental accommodation. Believe there is a marked difference in lifestyle, attitudes to space and activities that will need different regulations – depending on who is living in the unit – therefore best to have regulations that focus on the long term situation and the effects of that – not relatives but renters. Supports criteria in 16.7.3.21 and officer recommendations, but need to consider emergency vehicles and changes status from permitted to controlled. As the Res 2 zone is a special zone because of bush, coastal and stream sensitivities and infill building should require more careful management as any application, even for restricted size of MRU is likely to have a major cumulative effect – should be a discretionary activity. Past decisions have not given sufficient attention to topography, especially changes in slope, effects of overland flows, proximity of water courses, the extent of riparian margins or general vegetation cover. Branch supports the inclusion of the recommended assessment criteria, but bullet point should be amended to read: “existing mature trees, not listed on the ARC plant pest schedule, and native vegetation protected by this plan should be…design. In Res 4 zone, to achieve a cohesive urban form there needs careful management of the necessary modifications of the environment. The amount of exposed surface area and degree of slope are contributing factors to visual effects. There are a number of changes – erosion and sediment control measures, source control of stormwater, that are more likely to help retain the character of the Res 4 Zone. Agree that high density development is not always congruent with poor urban design – it is more often related to the expected value of properties. The traditional difference between Res 4A & 4B need not continue – more useful to identify neighbourhoods and apply special conditions that will manage better both resources and design appropriate to that area. Having a general limit of the lot size across the Res 4 zone, with at least limited discretionary activities and criteria to protect the physical environment and decline poor design would be likely to limit pressure on marginal lots and improve character. The Branch suggest a min net site area of 400 sqm for all Res 4 zone, limited discretionary activity status, for the assessment criteria add location and make redevelopment clause separate and add a threshold for a detailed project plan, define the difference between infill and brownfields and recognise potential infill on small greenfields. In the Res 2 zone, development in these sensitive zones is not primarily a design issue, the physical resources of the neighbourhoods are at risk. Bulk and location criteria for apartments are never likely to be compatible with the character or amenity value of these neighbourhoods. Suggest apartments be deleted and become non complying activities. Support incentives – should also specify riparian margins of 20m be included to protect water courses. Council design some form of economic incentive to private landowners as a recognition of their contribution to the maintenance of native vegetation and water quality in streams. In the Res 3 zone, there is a need to identify what is appropriate heritage. Open space and tree lined streets may be part of the heritage landscape. Whether infill on rear site intrudes into this heritage is a matter for site analysis. From the branches perspective – of more significance is the ability of Council to protect the mature trees from the impact of proposed buildings. Support an increase in the min lot size to 450 sqm, rear lots be available as a limited discretionary activity, applications for any brownfield development be discretionary and more than 2 dwellings or units be discretionary.

27

The present policy of reviewing the District Plan by taking an issue or sections one at a time fails to acknowledge the necessary integration and overview – Branch suggest there be a full review of the District Plan. 1.5.52 ARC - A. Schollum ARC’s concerns at the effects of infill housing are reflected in Issue 2.3.2 of the ARPS “urban development in the region threatens several environmental qualities and thresholds”. ARPS seeks to address these potential effects by promoting a more strategic model of intensification that…” provides opportunities for enhancement of the urban system through improved urban design and can enhance urban areas through making more efficient use of the land resource and improving the amenities of an area. ARC views coordinated intensification as being an important alternative to much of the present ad hoc infill housing. ARC’s concerns with infill housing are reflected in the provisions of Change 6 to the ARPS which introduces a new issue of ad hoc urban redevelopment and land use changes can lead to loss of urban amenity. ARC’s therefore acknowledges that infill development can have an adverse local effects on the existing character, identity and heritage of a local area & on the other hand the cumulative effects of ad hoc urban redevelopment (infill) can have significant regional-scale implications for growth management, the provision of an efficient public transport system and the provision of infrastructure. Infill development could be considered an important contributor in North Shore City to the intensification of town centres, areas on the fringe of town or subregional centres and areas and specific site that face geographical, geological or other constraints and which are consequently unable to sustain higher density development. ARC is concerned that aspects of PC 17 unnecessarily reduces the potential contribution of total site redevelopment to the residential intensification of NSC. ARC considers that providing for total site redevelopment, subject to the inclusion of additional assessment criteria designed to safeguard urban cohesion and amenity values, would retain the positive attributes of infill development while reducing the potential for adverse effects on neighbourhood character. Unlikely that the market will deliver densities that are sufficient to support the objectives of the ARGS. ARC submission therefore seeks that PPC17 be amended to include provisions that promote intensive development in specified high-density centres via the use of minimum densities or similar mechanisms. This would give some certainty that the plan change would, if enacted, have a practical effect that is consistent with the objectives of the ARGS. If the hearings panel accepts the officer’s recommendation to provide for minor residential units, infill in Res 3 and changes to Res 4 zones, recommend that PPC 17 should be amended to include a specific policy commitment to promoting intensification in specified growth centres and corridors in North Shore City. The policy commitment should be supported by rules that require min densities and heights or other similar mechanisms, cross-referenced to and integrated with similar policies and rules throughout the District Plan and consistent with the provisions of Plan Change 6. At the very least, it would be appropriate for any decision of the hearing panel to note that NSCC should, introduce a complementary policy or policies, to the district plan directing intensification to targeted centres and making reference to minimum densities and heights, or similar mechanisms. From a stormwater perspective, the ARC is supportive of the proposed changes as they strengthen existing rules by highlighting stormwater as a particular issue in the coastal area & by retaining discretion over matters including the design and location of outfalls. To ensure optimal environmental outcomes, the ARC considers that it would be beneficial for NSCC to retain discretion over the method(s) used for stormwater treatment and disposal. The wording of the proposed assessment criteria “the extent to which” do not provide sufficient certainty as to their practical meaning. The ARC submission recommends that the wording of this criterion be amended to provide greater certainty as to what standard an applicant is actually required to meet or aspire to. 1.5.53 Safekids – J Chambers, S. Randle Injury prevention service – aim is to reduce the number of unintentional injuries – cause of 1/3 children deaths. E.g. car seats, pool fencing. Concerned about driveway injuries by slow moving vehicles on private land. 98 children injured over a 14 month period and admitted to Starship Hospital – 16% were from North Shore City.

28

71% of accidents happened on home driveway and 21% on the driveway of a relative. In 38% of cases, the driver is a parent. Average age of the child injured is 23 months. Safekids advocates for the deletion, alteration or mitigation of clauses in District Plans that require an increase in the length of driveways or setback of garages clauses/rules. There is a statutory requirement to consider the health, safety of children. Driveways are play areas. Fencing may not be effective or a practical option. Recognised that footpath safety is important but this is a different issue. Further research is required, but solution appears to be the physical separation of driveways from areas used by children. Examples of housing types where accidents have occurred – infill situations with shared driveways, poor visibility, narrow or steep driveways. 1.5.54 W Chiang Is building a house to live in. Strongly disagree with the plan change. Council did not clearly notify the effective date of the plan change and there was not enough time for those with plans underway. Loss of affordable housing. Elderly people cannot choose to live in urban areas and purchase a larger lot. Change is unfair because of the surrounding neighbours have already subdivided. Does not provide an opportunity for people and families to pass on valuable assets to next generation. Would like the status quo for Res 4A retained. 1.5.55 M Morgan Houses used for student accommodation on either side of property, including 12 students in a 3 bedroom house. Students are itinerant and as young people like parties & noise & the hours they work/play are late with cars coming & going at all hours. Noise they make is inappropriate in a built up residential area. Rubbish is a problem as they do not empty their letter box. More suited to towns/industrial areas. Could limit the numbers of people per bedroom – health and hygiene standards should also govern this. 1.5.56 J Coates (tabled written submission) Plan change impacts significantly on peoples lives. Reliant upon money gained from subdividing property for continued survival. Bought property on the understanding that could subdivide further. To take right away is unreasonable & major blow for people who property represents money in the bank. Council should compensate property owners for any loss. Had gone to some effort to not subdivide property – reward is now to be seriously obstructed from doing so. Irony of the plan change is that it forces people to subdivide and encourages larger dwellings. 2.0 Commissioners Consideration of Plan Change and Submissions, Further Submissions and Decision 2.1 Topic 1 Oppose or Support Change in its Entirety 2.1.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4.

29

2.1.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Infill Issues The Commissioners note that background research including comments from Councillors, Community Board members and Environmental Services officers has identified that there are issues/problems associated with the past and current infill housing practices in North Shore City and are of the view that these need to be addressed. They concur with those submitters who have made the point that that achieving good quality infill housing is primarily a design issue. It is noted however that it is difficult to legislate for good design through District Plan controls and the resource consent process. Section 32 Report The Commissioners are aware that Section 32 of the Resource Management Act requires an evaluation of alternatives, costs and benefits at two stages – firstly before a proposed plan is publicly notified and a further evaluation before making a decision under clause 29(4) of Schedule 1 (which states that ‘after considering a plan or change, the local authority may decline, approve or approve with modifications, the plan or change, and shall give reasons for its decision). They note the officer’s comments that this decision notice comprises part of the Section 32 report. Auckland Regional Policy Statement Advice from the officers that the proposed changes to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement place less emphasis on infill development accommodating population growth and much greater emphasis on development in town centres and around public transport nodes is noted by the Commissioners and is reflected in their decisions on the plan change. The changes also seek to improve the quality of the built environment. RMA The Commissioners are aware that Section 5 of the RMA states the purpose of the Act as follows: (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while- (a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment The Commissioners are of the view that some further control is required over and above that provided by the Operative District Plan if increased quality of the design of infill housing and the purpose of the Act are to be achieved.

Proposed Approach The Commissioners are of the opinion that there is scope as a result of the submissions received to focus the proposed changes on encouraging better design solutions by setting appropriate thresholds when a resource consent is required and providing for flexibility in terms of alternative approaches or design solutions as limited or full discretionary activities. The approach adopted in this decision will lessen the loss of development potential (associated with the proposed Change as publicly notified) and will in some situations, alter the threshold at which a resource consent is required and provide the Council with greater ability to decline poorly designed proposals. The Commissioners are of the view that this is a more appropriate approach given the extent of infill development that has already occurred in the city to date and the expectations of landowners whose land still have some development potential under the Operative District Plan. 2.1.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions opposing the entire plan change and seeking its withdrawal or deletion or similar relief be accepted in part to the extent that a number of changes have been made to the plan

30

change to address issues raised by submitters. The further submission in support and opposition be accepted in part. 9-2 David Anstiss 15-1 Roger Ball Dimension Surveyors Ltd Further Submissions Support 15-1x243 Neil Gunderson 23-18 Beta Properties Ltd 23-23 Beta Properties Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 23-23x340 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 28-8 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 33-1 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-1 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-1 Buildcorp Management Ltd 39-9 Fiona Butler 54-1 Lai Yoke Chuan 61-1 Paul Connolly 64-1 Mr C and Mrs M Couch 66-1 Lyn Coyne-Ward 77-1 Stephen Dennerly 81-1 Martin Drabble 84-1 Dundalk Investments Ltd 85-8 Jacqueline Dykstra 89-1 Gordon Edginton G K Agencies Ltd 97-8 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 98-8 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes 120-1 Wayne Harris 121-1 Terry Harrison 135-1 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 137-8 Dave Hunt 139-1 Ideal Buildings Further Submissions Oppose 139-1x278 Clime Asset Management Limited 146-1 JoelFlo Trust 147-8 Alex Johnston 154-1 Antony Kabalin 157-1 Lance Kells 166-8 Sandra Lane 168-8 Logan Latham 169-8 Robert Lavender 170-8 Sheila Lavender 184-1 Robert Mach 189-2 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 201-1 The McLellan Family Trust 218-8 Robyn Ann Neil 220-1 New Zealand Defence Force 229-1 Andrew Nyhoff 251-8 Craig Potter Team Design 252-8 Kirsty Potter Team Design 256-20 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 262-1 Geoff Richards Geoff Richards Architects Ltd 265(c)-20 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 267-1 Barry Rogers 274-1 Selwyn Ryan 293-1 D S Smith 295-1 Keith Smith 311-8 Evelyn Tate 314-1 Andrew Thomson 318-1 Peter Robert Thwaites 333-1 John Wang 335-1 Xing Wang 354-1 Yessam Investments Ltd 355-1 Chaoxi Yin 358-1 Ray Clarke

31

That the following submissions supporting the plan change be accepted in part to the extent that the intent of the plan change is retained but a number of changes have been made to address issues raised in the submission process. The further submission in support and opposition be accepted in part. 87-1 Robert White East Coast Bays Coastal Protection Society Further Submissions Oppose 87-1x142 Lane Associates Ltd 92-1 Janis Fairburn Further Submissions Support 92-1x355 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 110-1 Ian Grant 131-1 John Hotchin-Davies 171-1 Bob Leenstra Further Submissions Oppose 171-1x143 Lane Associates Ltd 228-1 M K and M J Norton 269-1 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 280-1 Clyde H Scott Further Submissions Support 280-1x341 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 281-1 M Carol Scott 292-1 Kandasamy Sivapalan 297-1 Robyn and John Spooner 320-1 Mr Alan Tresadern 327-1 Marilyn, Joy and Michael VanDam 341-1 Barbara and Robert White That the following submissions seeking amendments to the plan change be accepted in part to the extent that a number of changes have been made to the plan change to address issues raised by submitters. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 20-1 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes Further Submissions Oppose 20-1x331 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 23-24 Beta Properties Ltd 57-1 Clime Asset Management Limited 58-1 Jonathan Coates 67-1 Dennis Crampsie 129-1 D W Hookway 256-21 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 2. 1.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • There are legitimate infill housing issues that need to be addressed if the quality of North Shore

City’s urban environment is to be maintained and enhanced; • As a result of the Plan Change 17 submission process, it is recommended that amendments be

made to proposed Plan Change 17 to focus the plan change on encouraging improved infill design solutions;

• Amendments to the North Shore City District Plan to improve the quality of infill housing are in accordance with the purpose of the Resource Management Act, the Regional Policy Statement and the North Shore City District Plan;

• Note: The Decision Notice associated with the Plan Change forms part of the Section 32 Analysis.

32

2. 1.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1 and are outlined under each of the topic headings that follow. 2.2 Topic 2 Minor Residential Units 2.2.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.2.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions The Issue The Commissioners are aware that the problems being experienced with minor residential units in North Shore City generally relate to too large a unit (70sqm) and associated accessory buildings (which are unlimited in size, apart from site coverage and permeable area rules) being squeezed onto sites that are too small and often contain sizeable principal dwellings and associated accessory buildings. The status of minor residential units as permitted activities also provides little ability to control such developments. Although illegally converted units are an increasing problem, it is the view of the Commissioners that this is a separate enforcement issue. Economic and Social Benefits The economic and social benefits of minor residential units have been clearly outlined by the submitters. The Commissions concur with these benefits and are aware that housing affordability and the aging of the population are becoming an increasingly important issue in North Shore City, the Auckland region and other parts of the country. Minor residential units provide one housing option that assists in addressing these issues. Consolidation/Intensification Although many submitters have referred to the consolidation and intensification benefits of minor residential units, it is the Commissioners view that these benefits are overstated. They are of the opinion that a scattering of units does not significantly contribute to improved public transport. This viewpoint is supported in the proposed changes to the Regional Policy Statement where it is stated that: “The scale of infill development has led to increased densities but has not provided equivalent increases in amenity and has placed pressure on existing infrastructure and communities. Furthermore, it does not provide sufficient support to the public transport system. Intensification at key nodes and along corridors in accordance with the Regional Growth Strategy is a pattern of development that is more transit supportive”. The Commissioners do however concur with the statement that minor residential units do provide another housing option which reduces some pressure on the city’s greenfield areas. Purpose of the Resource Management Act The Commissioners note that providing for minor residential units will enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and thus be consistent with the purpose of the Act. The Commissioners are satisfied that the changes to the minor residential unit provisions as contained in this decision notice will address the amenity issues that have resulted in the plan change and assist in achieving section 5 2(c) of the Act (Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment). Development Contributions The Commissioners have noted that development contributions from minor residential units are assisting in the upgrading of infrastructure. Illegal Minor Residential Units The Commissioners are of the view that problems associated with illegal minor residential units are a separate issue and will need to continue to be addressed through monitoring and enforcement and education campaigns regardless of the activity status and associated rules. Fines for breaches of the Resource Management Act and Building Act are determined by the Courts.

33

Regional Comparison The Commissioners have noted that of the three other cities in the Auckland Region that provide for minor residential units, each specifies a minimum net site area and has a smaller allowable floor area and are of the view that there is some merit in adopting a similar approach. Minimum Net Site Area Submitters opposed to the Plan Change have raised a number of reasons why minor residential units should be retained in one form or another and suggested a number of alternative approaches ranging from increasing lot size to reducing unit size and restricting minor residential units to single storey. Having considered the alternatives, the Commissioners are of the view that requiring a minimum net site area of 600 sqm for minor residential units as a permitted activity would mean that they are located on sizeable properties which generally will have sufficient site area to accommodate either a stand-alone minor residential unit or one attached/part of the principal dwelling. On properties less than 600 sqm, it is the Commissioners view that minor residential units should be provided for as a discretionary activity – with consent dependant upon matters such as the size of the principal dwelling, the size of the minor residential unit, its location and quality of design. It is these smaller lots where problems have been encountered with minor residential units. Size of Minor Residential Units It has also been requested by some submitters that the size of minor residential units be reduced rather than making them non complying. Under the Operative District Plan a 70 sqm restriction applies but the size of associated accessory building is unrestricted. As a result, the Commissioners are aware that once garaging is taken into account, minor residential units may be upwards of 100 sqm in floor area – the size of many older three bedroom “principal dwellings”. It is the Commissioners view that the size of units should be restricted to 60 sqm (traditionally they were 50 sqm) which will provide for a reasonably sized two-bedroom unit. The total floor area of the mru and associated accessory buildings is also controlled by site coverage and impervious surface rules. The Commissioners are of the view that there should be no control flexibility (as a limited discretionary activity) to enable minor residential units to be increased in size. Dependent Relatives The Commissioners are of the opinion that providing for minor residential units for dependent relatives but then requiring the removal of kitchens once the dependent relative no longer resides there, will present enforcement issues and is impractical and an inefficient use of resources. Under the Operative District Plan, if a minor residential unit is provided in rooms of an existing dwelling and is for a dependent relative, the provisions relating to open space, service courts and parking do not apply. A statutory declaration is required that the minor residential unit is to be only used by a family member. The Commissioners are of the view that minor residential units should be “future proofed” and that all units, regardless of who occupies them should have a minimum standards of private open space and car parking and these should not be able to be reduced under control flexibility (limited discretionary resource consent). Definition of Residential Unit The Commissioners note that the proposed changes to the definition of residential unit were to compensate for the fact that minor residential units were proposed to be deleted from the plan. The amended definition enables dependent relatives to be accommodated independently within a residential unit without it constituting a second dwelling. With minor residential units to be reinstated in an amended form, it is the view of the Commissioners that the changes to the definition are no longer required. A related issue is whether residential units generally should be permitted to have more than one kitchen – in games room, bars, and studios. A kitchen sink or dishwashing facility is no longer the most appropriate means of determining the number of residential units. A number of factors are involved. The Commissioners are of the view that this matter needs to be investigated further and be the subject of a subsequent plan change.

34

Assessment Criteria The Commissioners note that the general residential assessment criteria for controlled and discretionary activities in rule 16.7.2 would apply to applications for minor residential units on sites of less than 600 sqm. In addition the following additional criteria is supported: 16.7.3.21 Assessment Criteria for Minor Residential Units on Sites Less Than 600sqm a) Proposals shall be designed to ensure no more than minor adverse effects on the amenities of the site, adjoining sites and the neighbourhood as a whole; b) The design of the minor residential unit shall be compatible with the principal dwelling; c) Vehicle access shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the addition of a minor residential unit on the site; d) Onsite manoeuvring and carparking shall be adequate and carparking shall be located in a practical location in relation to the minor residential; e) Additional landscaping and planting shall be undertaken to enhance the amenities of the site and achieve a reasonable level of visual privacy; f) The size and location of the existing dwelling and the effect of additional buildings on the site shall maintain the amenity values and character of the site and locality. 2.2.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions opposing the deletion of minor residential units and seeking their reinstatement or similar relief be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 2-1 Murray and Christine Aikenhead 5-1 Alpha Property Trust 10-1 K A D and J B Archer 11-1 Angela Ashby 14-1 Axis Consultants 16-1 A B Bansall-Allen 17-1 BCM NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman 19-1 Beem Holdings Ltd Deirdrie McKenna 21-1 G Bennison 21-7 G Bennison Further Submissions Support 21-7x98 HNZC 23-1 Beta Properties Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 23-1x334 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 23-4 Beta Properties Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 23-4x337 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 24-1 Malcolm Black 28-1 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 30-1 Mr J Bromley Webb Estate Ltd 31-1 Mr and Mrs Brown 33-10 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-2 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-2 Buildcorp Management Ltd 38-1 Bruce Bushett 39-5 Fiona Butler 44-2 Murray Calder 46-1 P M Campbell 47-1 Luigi Cappel 57-2 Clime Asset Management Limited 60-2 Alan Collie ABC Properties Ltd 63-1 Colin Maxwell Couch 64-2 Mr C and Mrs M Couch 69-1 Gary and Karina Curran

35

75-1 Paul Davy 76-1 Garry Denley 83-1 Mr R Duffin 85-1 Jacqueline Dykstra 88-1 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd 91-1 Eta Property Trust 96-1 Chris Fischer 97-1 Ben Furniss 98-1 Anthony Ian Houston 99-1 Gamma Property 101-1 Anna Gibb 102-1 John Gibb 103-1 Cameron Gilmour and Joanna Wood 104-1 Rosemary Gilmour 105-1 GMP Investments 106-1 Adam Gower GMP Investments 107-1 Donna Gower GMP Investments 113-1 Marilyn Hamlyn 114-1 Paul Hamlyn Kokiri Developments 115-1 Jim Hammond 116-1 Nicolette Hansen 122-1 Miranda Hawker 123-1 Richard Hayes 125-1 Melissa He 126-1 Ewen Henderson 127-1 HNZC 129-3 D W Hookway 130-1 Deirdre Horwood 134-1 John Hoy 135-2 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 136-2 Keith S Humphries 137-1 Dave Hunt 138-1 Nicole Hunt 143-1 Nicole James 144-1 William James 146-4 JoelFlo Trust 147-1 Alex Johnston 149-1 E A Jones 150-1 Sharlene Jones 151-1 Ty Jones 153-1 JWL Investments Ltd 156-1 Grant Kearney 159-1 Kerry King 160-1 Wendy King 161-1 Kokiri Developments 163-1 Ivy Kong 166-1 Sandra Lane 168-1 Logan Latham 169-1 Robert Lavender 170-1 Sheila Lavender 172-1 Sean Levy 173-1 Nichole Lewis 177-1 Christine Lim 178-1 Robert Lochore Lochore's Real Estate 179-1 Longyan Properties Ltd 187-1 David Maconaghie 189-1 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 190-1 Gerrard Martin 192-1 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd 193-1 Gordon Martinsen 194-1 Dennis John Massey 197-1 M W McCarthy 198-1 Joanne McClean 199-1 David McGuinness 200-1 Deirdre McKenna 201-10 The McLellan Family Trust 203-1 Edward Thomas McMillan 206-1 Brian Mearns 218-1 Robyn Ann Neil 222-1 Hazel and Campbell Newman 222-2 Hazel and Campbell Newman 223-1 Marilyn Nicholls 224-1 Bob W Nicholson 230-1 Simon O'Connor

36

232-1 Alex Oldham 234-1 Des Calder 237-2 I Parker 239-1 Christopher Alan Pattison 242-1 Sarah Pearce 244-1 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 246-1 Adam Pink-Martin 247-1 Shona Pink-Martin 249-1 Marisa Poolman 251-1 Craig Potter Team Design 252-1 Kirsty Potter Team Design 253-1 Pride Properties Ltd 256-1 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 258-1 L M Reddington 259-1 P J Reddington 260-1 Steven W Reddington 264-1 Risto NZ Ltd 265(a)-6 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-6 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 265(a)-9 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-9 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 265(c)-25 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 270-1 Herb Rutley 271-1 Stuart Rutley 275-1 Ron Sadler 277-1 Matt Salmond 279-1 Leighton Sauni 282-1 Igor Segroutes 284-1 Sharlene Jones Sharty Ltd 285-1 Ty Jones Sharty Ltd 287-1 Donna Shields 288-1 Scott Shields 289-1 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 290-1 Simon Yates Planning Limited 296-1 Tim Smith 300-1 Peter Stapleton 301-1 Shari Stapleton 302-4 Roger Steele 303-1 Mr Craig Stevens 304-1 Ian Stewart 305-1 Mark Stewart 306-1 S M Stodart 311-1 Evelyn Tate 312-1 Darren Taylor 316-1 Ross Douglas Thurlow 319-1 Colleen Tonei 320-1 Mr Alan Tresadern 321-1 Christina M Trinnaman 322-1 Stuart Robert Trinnaman 329-1 Jacqui Vowles 337-1 Julie Waymouth 339-1 Westlake Properties Ltd 340-1 David Whitburn Fuzo 348-1 Clive Richard Wood 349-1 Brad Worthington Further Submissions Oppose 349-1x321 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 350-1 Merrilyn Joy Worthington 351-1 Rex Worthington 354-2 Yessam Investments Ltd 356-1 Jennifer Yorke 357-1 Zeta Property Trust 367-1 Colleen Prendergast That the following submission seeking each case be decided on its merits, within Council rules be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as a permitted or discretionary activity. 16-2 A B Bansall-Allen

37

That the following submissions requesting that the deleted minor residential unit provisions should be reinstated and Rule 16.6.2.4(a)(v) should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as a permitted or discretionary activity. 256-15 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submissions seeking that minor residential units be provided for but the activity status be changed to either a controlled or limited/discretionary activity be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as a permitted or discretionary activity. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 33-11 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 33-11x262 Clime Asset Management Limited 33-12 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 33-12x6 HNZC 33-12x263 Clime Asset Management Limited 34-3 Buildcorp Investment Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 34-3x265 Clime Asset Management Limited 34-4 Buildcorp Investment Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 34-4x7 HNZC 34-4x266 Clime Asset Management Limited 35-3 Buildcorp Management Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 35-3x268 Clime Asset Management Limited 35-4 Buildcorp Management Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 35-4x8 HNZC 35-4x269 Clime Asset Management Limited 64-4 Mr C and Mrs M Couch Further Submissions Oppose 64-4x9 HNZC 64-4x271 Clime Asset Management Limited 64-5 Mr C and Mrs M Couch Further Submissions Oppose 64-5x272 Clime Asset Management Limited 71-1 Pam Dalton Further Submissions Oppose 71-1x10 HNZC 71-1x274 Clime Asset Management Limited 73-1 Davis Ogilvie and Partners Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 73-1x11 HNZC 73-1x275 Clime Asset Management Limited 146-5 JoelFlo Trust

38

Further Submissions Oppose 146-5x282 Clime Asset Management Limited 146-6 JoelFlo Trust Further Submissions Oppose 146-6x15 HNZC 146-6x283 Clime Asset Management Limited 167-2 Lane Associates Ltd Cherie Lane Further Submissions Oppose 167-2x16 HNZC 167-2x285 Clime Asset Management Limited 186-1 Lindsay and Lynda Mackie 201-11 The McLellan Family Trust Further Submissions Oppose 201-11x286 Clime Asset Management Limited 347-1 Morris Wong Further Submissions Oppose 347-1x23 HNZC 354-3 Yessam Investments Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 354-3x302 Clime Asset Management Limited 354-4 Yessam Investments Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 354-4x24 HNZC 354-4x303 Clime Asset Management Limited 367-2 Colleen Prendergast

That the following submissions seeking the introduction of design guidelines and assessment criteria for the construction of minor residential units of 70 sqm be accepted in part to the extent that assessment criteria for minor residential units on sites of less than 600 sqm is introduced. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 33-13 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 33-13x264 Clime Asset Management Limited 34-5 Buildcorp Investment Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 34-5x267 Clime Asset Management Limited 35-5 Buildcorp Management Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 35-5x270 Clime Asset Management Limited 64-6 Mr C and Mrs M Couch Further Submissions Oppose 64-6x273 Clime Asset Management Limited 146-7 JoelFlo Trust Further Submissions Oppose 146-7x284 Clime Asset Management Limited

39

201-13 The McLellan Family Trust Further Submissions Oppose 201-13x288 Clime Asset Management Limited 354-5 Yessam Investments Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 354-5x304 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submissions seeking the retention of the right to build minor residential units but on larger properties and/or reduced size of minor residential unit be accepted. The further submissions in support be accepted and in opposition be declined. 8-1 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Further Submissions Oppose 8-1x4 HNZC Support in Part and Oppose in Part 8-1x357 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 14-2 Axis Consultants Further Submissions Oppose 14-2x5 HNZC 14-2x261 Clime Asset Management Limited 18-1 A J and L C Bedford 18-2 A J and L C Bedford 48-1 Jonathan Casement 74-1 Doreen Davy 94-1 F Farzad 104-2 Rosemary Gilmour Further Submissions Oppose 104-2x13 HNZC 139-2 Ideal Buildings C/- Alex Styles Further Submissions Oppose 139-2x14 HNZC 139-2x279 Clime Asset Management Limited 196-1 Katherine Masters 213-2 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design Further Submissions Oppose 213-2x290 Clime Asset Management Limited 219-1 Roger Nelson Further Submissions Oppose 219-1x291 Clime Asset Management Limited 238-1 Kristen Parlane Further Submissions Oppose 238-1x20 HNZC 238-1x295 Clime Asset Management Limited 265(c)-24 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants Further Submissions Oppose 265(c)-24x21 HNZC 265(c)-24x296 Clime Asset Management Limited 286-1 Rob Sherrell Further Submissions

40

Oppose 286-1x298 Clime Asset Management Limited Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215, Auckland 317-1 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 317-1x22 HNZC PO Box 2083, Wellington 317-1x299 Clime Asset Management Limited Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215, Auckland 367-3 Colleen Prendergast

That the following submission stating that restrictions on minor residential units should not prevent homeowners from adding sleepout units with bathroom facilities, including a sink be accepted. 49-1 N G Chase

That the following submission seeking flexibility for controls for minor residential units on a site specific basis be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 63-3 Colin Maxwell Couch

That the following submission seeking the encouragement of the development of minor residential units by keeping current controls, reducing development contributions & rates be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 95-1 Steve Finnemore

That the following submissions supporting proposed changes to minor residential units be accepted in part to the extent that permitted activity status will only apply on lots in Res 1,4-7 and Structure Plan zones with a minimum net site area of 600 sqm , otherwise minor residential units will be discretionary activities and the floor area is to be reduced to 60 sqm. That the further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 100-1 Ray Gatland 111-1 Greenhithe Residents, Ratepayers and Community Hall Assoc. Inc. Further Submissions Support 111-1x354 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 155-3 Richard Kane Further Submissions Oppose 155-3x140 Lane Associates Ltd Support 155-3x352 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 336-1 Alan Roy and Eileen Josephine Watson

That the following submission seeking an increase in fines for illegal units be declined as enforcement action is outside the scope of the plan change. The further submission in opposition be accepted.

139-3 Ideal Buildings Further Submissions Oppose 139-3x280 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission seeking restrictions on the development of other outbuildings on a site where a minor residential unit is to be built be accepted in part to the extent that existing site coverage and

41

permeable areas rules already restrict the area and extent of the total amount of building coverage. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 139-4 Ideal Buildings Further Submissions Oppose 139-4x281 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that minor residential units to be allowed to be attached to the main house be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as a permitted or discretionary activity and they may be attached or separate from the principal dwelling. The further submission in support be accepted in part. 26-11 Boulder Planning Limited 162-1 Charles Kong Further Submissions Support 162-1x369 Charles Kong That the following submission requesting that minor residential units be removed from the Res 1 zone but retained in all other zones be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity.

164-1 Shane Kuzmanic That the following submission requesting that a resource consent application (as a controlled activity) be required where a minor residential unit is integrated within the main dwelling and a limited discretionary activity where a minor residential units of 70 sqm are provided as a separate be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as a permitted or discretionary activity. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 201-12 The McLellan Family Trust Further Submissions Oppose 201-12x17 HNZC 201-12x287 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that the proposal to do away with the minor residential units be changed to allow dwellings of up to 70 sqm floor area as separate units for any residential purpose, but only on sites of not less than 600 sqm, provided they meet the normal bulk and location requirements within a delineated area. And the proposal providing for second kitchens in existing dwellings to remain be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as a permitted activity on sites of 600sqm (except Res 2 & 3) or greater and as a discretionary activity on sites of less than 600 sqm and in the Res 2 & 3 zones. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 221-2 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch Further Submissions Oppose 221-2x18 HNZC 221-2x292 Clime Asset Management Limited 221-2x348 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society That the following submission requesting that minor residential units be allowed for homeowners who have lived on a property for a significant time and had previously intended to develop their property when the timing was right be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity.

42

241-2 Francis Payne

That the following submission opposing changes to minor residential units, allowing for additional kitchens in a dwelling would only be abused once the dependent relative was no longer there. If the land area is covering a square metre coverage of two single dwelling areas and does not exceed the permeable area for the site, then this would be effective and have less impact on the neighbouring community be accepted in part to the extent that provision is to be made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 261-1 T Reid-Copus

That the following submission seeking the retention of the current definition of residential unit be accepted. 265(c)-23 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants

That the following submission requesting that the definition of residential unit be replaced with the following or similar be declined. The further submission in opposition be supported. "Means any self-contained residence, housing one or more people as a single household. The residence must have facilities that will allow the residence to accommodate no more than a single household”. The test to determine that the dwelling has the facilities for no more than one household are as follows: 1. The residence contains typically rooms that provide for activities that are associated with bedroom(s), water closet, laundry, kitchen and an area for daytime activities. 2. The residence has a single focal point of entry, food preparation area, laundry facility and a single day time activity area (combination of lounge, rumpus and a dining room). 3. All parts of the residence living areas are internally connected and designed to be used by a single household. 4. Is not capable of being used by two households either independently or with a shared facility. 265(c)-26 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants Further Submissions Oppose 265(c)-26x297 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submissions opposing or requiring modification of the requirement for the removal of sink/dishwashing facility or the restriction to dependant relatives be accepted. 25-2 Daphne Blackshaw 36-1 Vivienne Bull 73-2 Davis Ogilvie and Partners Ltd 116-2 Nicolette Hansen 127-2 HNZC 213-1 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design 217-1 Anthony Michael Nash 227-2 Evelyn Norton

That the following submission seeking that the provisions relating to housing for dependant relatives are strengthened by including additional requirements that have the effect of limiting the size & scale of such housing, and providing for outdoor living space and carparking. Such housing to be a controlled activity to secure performance of the removal of the kitchen facilities when no longer required for the intended purpose. Final sentence of the amended definition of residential unit could be specifically included in the controlled activity rule. Include specific assessment criteria with respect to the nature of the family and dependency reliance relationship. Other assessment criteria should address the size & scale of such housing, provision of outdoor living space, carparking and the ability of such stand alone housing to be removed from the site be accepted in part to the extent that minor residential units are to be provided for as either permitted or discretionary activities, the size is reduced to 60 sqm and compliance with outdoor living space required. The submissions in opposition be accepted in part.

90-1 Environmental Services Division

43

Further Submissions Oppose 90-1x1 Hazel and Campbell 90-1x12 HNZC 90-1x277 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission supporting the effective deletion of a requirement to pay reserve contributions in relation to accommodating relatives be declined. 222-3 Hazel and Campbell Newman That the following submission seeking that any second kitchen must be a minor residential unit and pay development contribution, additional rates etc with no restrictions as to user of minor residential units as enforcement is unworkable, be accepted. 14-3 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling

That the following submission supporting the proposed changes to minor residential units but requiring amendment to the definition of residential unit to clearly define a second kitchen: “ a second kitchen means: a second separate food storage, preparing cooking area and facilities (including dishwashing) not integrally part of the principal kitchen” be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted. 204-2 Michael and Janet McQuillan Further Submissions Oppose 204-2x141 Lane Associates Ltd 204-2x289 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that a second kitchen sink or dishwashing facility in a residential unit for dependant relatives be a controlled activity and amend the definition of residential unit accordingly be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted. 225-1 North Shore City Council Further Submissions Oppose 225-1x19 HNZC 225-1x113 Pam Dalton 225-1x293 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that a definition of dependant relative be added: “Dependant relative means a person or person related to the occupants of the principal residential unit by blood, marriage, civil union, or adoption and who is/are physically, mentally or financially reliant for support” be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted and in support be declined. 225-2 North Shore City Council Further Submissions Oppose 225-2x114 Pam Dalton 225-2x294 Clime Asset Management Limited Support 225-2x2 Hazel and Campbell Newman

That the following submission requesting that the objectives, policies, permitted use status, development rules, definition for minor residential units be retained be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 331-1 Mr Pancha Walecha

That the following submission requesting the modification of minor residential units rules to control the potential negative effects arising from this form of housing be accepted in part to the extent that activity

44

status and size of minor residential units is changed. 331-2 Mr Pancha Walecha

That the following submission requesting subsequent amendments and modifications to the Council’s Operative District Plan to give effect to the submission be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 331-3 Mr Pancha Walecha

That the following submission requesting that the provision for a second kitchen in a residential unit be removed or provided for as a restricted discretionary activity, or as another class of activity, requiring a resource consent, along with the ability for the Council to impose conditions on a grant of consent or to refuse consent so that the Council can exercise due and required control over this activity, with consequential amendments being made to the district plan to include assessment criteria that address the need and future removal of the second kitchen or similar relief that meets our submission be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined. 336-2 Alan Roy and Eileen Josephine Watson Further Submissions Oppose 336-2x300 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that the Council ensure that existing agreements in relation to the removal of existing minor residential units and/or the ability to subdivide or dispose of them independently of the overall parent site, be maintained and enforced be accepted in part to the extent that the plan does not provide the ability to subdivide minor residential units. The issue of existing agreements in relation to the removal of minor residential units is an enforcement issue that is outside the scope of this plan change. The further submission in opposition be accepted. 336-3 Alan Roy and Eileen Josephine Watson Further Submissions Oppose 336-3x301 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that minor residential units remain a permitted activity or alternatively introduce a transitional stage is introduced whereby those developments that commenced before April 6 are processed under the criteria in the operative District Plan be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 338-1 Vaughan Wenham That the following submissions seeking that free standing minor residential units be allowed as a permitted activity but with all bulk and location rules being enforced with no flexibility & control of occupancy limited to a relative enforceable by way of covenant with the applicant and in perpetuity by way of consent notice be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity with no provision for control flexibility. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 86-4 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 86-4x276 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submissions requesting that the requirements for outdoor living courts, service areas, and parking in respect of Minor Household Units be retained/reinstated, but remove ability for

45

dispensation/relaxation of these controls through Control Flexibility be accepted. 126-2 Ewen Henderson 367-4 Colleen Prendergast That the following submission opposing changes to open space associated with minor residential units be accepted. 44-6 Murray Calder That the following submissions seeking alternative or consequential relief that meets the submitters concerns be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either a permitted or discretionary activity. 33-14 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-6 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-6 Buildcorp Management Ltd 64-7 Mr C and Mrs M Couch 146-8 JoelFlo Trust 201-14 The McLellan Family Trust 354-6 Yessam Investments Ltd 367-5 Colleen Prendergast That the following submission requesting revaluation and rates reduction for existing sites that could have had a minor unit be declined. 63-4 Colin Maxwell Couch 2.2.4 Reasons for the Decision

The reasons for this decision are: • Housing affordability is a significant issue for North Shore City and the Auckland region as a whole

and providing for minor residential units in one form or another assists in providing an alternative lower cost housing option;

• Minor residential units add to the housing choice available in the city; • Providing for minor residential units enables dependent relatives to be cared for by families while

maintaining a degree of independence; • Income from minor residential units enables landowners to provide for their economic wellbeing; • Adverse effects associated with minor residential units on the city’s infrastructure are able to be

mitigated by development contributions; • Adverse effects associated with minor residential units on the character of residential, areas can be

addressed by the changes to provide for minor residential units as permitted activities on sites of 600 sqm or larger, reducing their size to 60 sqm and not providing for an increase in the size of minor residential units as a limited discretionary activity;

• Providing for minor residential units on sites less than 600 sqm as a discretionary activity recognises that they can be accommodated on smaller sites but this is dependant upon matters such as the design of the unit and its relationship with the principal dwelling, the size of the existing dwelling and accessory buildings;

• Requiring the removal of kitchens in residential units for dependent relatives would be administratively difficult to enforce, not in accordance with the effects based philosophy of the RMA, and represents an inefficient and a costly use of resources.

• The definition of residential unit and the issue of a single residential unit having more than one kitchen should be the subject of a subsequent plan change.

46

2.2.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.3 Topic 3 Boarding Houses 2.3.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.3.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Adverse Effects The Commissioners note that advice from the Monitoring and Compliance Department of North Shore City Council’s Environmental Services Division during the background research phase of the plan change has indicated that some boarding houses are adversely affecting the character and amenity values of the area in which they are located. The Commissioners note that similar concerns have also been mentioned by some of the submitters. Boarding House v Housing for Special Needs The Commissioners agree with points raised in submissions that there is a need to distinguish between a Boardinghouse and Housing for Special Needs, as Housing for Special Needs has not given rise to the same issues that Boardinghouses have. They note that the major difference between the two is that in a boarding situation, there is greater vehicle usage. This is not the case for Housing for Special Needs. Homestays The Commissioners also note that homestays also have a different vehicle generating characteristics from boarding houses and typically provide accommodation for school aged overseas students who do not have their own vehicle. Threshold When Resource Consent is Required A number of figures have been suggested by submitters as an appropriate threshold when a resource consent should be required. Some of these include the owner/manager and their families. The Commissioners have referred to other relevant legislation and the approach of other cities in the Auckland Region as a guide to a reasonable threshold figure. They note that the Education (Hostels) Regulations 2005 apply to a hostel only if: a) the hostel is used for the accommodation of 5 or more students of whom none is in any way a family member of, or related to, the owner and b) each student ‘s accommodation is provided for valuable consideration and for 1 or more periods each of which is longer than 3 consecutive nights. In addition, under the Fire Safety and Evacuation of Buildings Regulations 1992, evacuation schemes for public safety are required under the above regulations where any building is used as a place- (c ) Where accommodation is provided for more than 5 people whether on an overnight, short-term, or long-term basis. They note the following thresholds and activity status for other cities in the Auckland region: Manukau City Residential centres – not accommodating more than 10 persons inclusive of owner’s family and staff – permitted Residential centres – accommodating more than 10 persons – restricted discretionary (subject to appeal)

47

Rodney District Boarding house – means a residential building in which lodging and/or boarding is provided or intended to be provided (with or without reward) for 5 or more lodgers (other than members of the family of the occupier or person in charge or control of the building), and includes a halfway house, private hotel and a guest house, but excludes a motel, and premises licensed under the Sale of Liquor Act 1962, or any Act in substitution therefore. Boarding houses accommodating not more than 10 persons inclusive of owner’s family and staff – permitted. The Commissioners are of the view that an appropriate threshold (before a resource consent is required) having regard to the legislation referred to above and other cities within the Auckland Region is 5 or more boarders. Excluding family members from the threshold will simplify matters and make enforcement easier. They are also of the view that an upper limit of a total of 10 persons, including the manager and family members should also apply. 2.3.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions supporting proposed changes to boardinghouses be accepted in part to the extent that the definition of boardinghouse is amended and the threshold for resource consent changed to 5 or more boarders or a max of 10 people. 14-4 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling 145-1 Alan Lester 212-1 M Morgan and M Barbara 230-2 Simon O'Connor 275-2 Ron Sadler

That the following submissions opposing changes to boardinghouses be accepted in part to the extent that the difference between a boardinghouse and residential care centre is recognised in the activity table and family members are excluded from the threshold when a resource consent is required for 5 or more boarders. The further submission in support be accepted in part. 83-2 Mr R Duffin 116-3 Nicolette Hansen 127-3 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor 198-6 Joanne McClean 226-1 North Shore Housing Trust Further Submissions Support 226-1x26 HNZC That the following submissions suggesting alternative threshold for a resource consent be accepted in part to the extent that the threshold for resource consent changed to 5 or more boarders or a max of 10 people. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 224-2 Bob W Nicholson Further Submissions Support 224-2x25 HNZC 248-1 Katie Pool Unique NZ 324-1 Graham D Turner Further Submissions Oppose 324-1x28 HNZC 325-1 Angela Oliver Unique New Zealand Further Submissions Oppose 325-1x29 HNZC

48

That the following submissions suggesting a distinction between boarding houses and residential care centres be accepted. The further submissions in support be accepted. 226-2 North Shore Housing Trust Further Submissions Support 226-2x27 HNZC 2.3.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • North Shore City has experienced adverse effects associated with boardinghouses on the character

and amenity of areas in which they are located; • There is a need to distinguish between boarding houses and residential care centres as residential

care centres have different operational, traffic generating and parking characteristics; • Family members should be excluded from the threshold for determining when a resource consent

for a boardinghouse is required, as this complicates matters (in determining who is family and who is a boarder) and makes enforcement and monitoring difficult;

• A threshold of up to 4 boarders before a resource consent is required is reasonable in comparison to other cities in the Auckland region and is consistent with the requirements of other legislation such as the Education (Hostel) Regulations, Fire Safety & Evacuation of Buildings Regulations;

• A max of 10 people including boarders, live-in manager and their family is considered an appropriate upper threshold before a resource consent is required to enable an assessment of the effects of the activity.

2.3.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.4 Topic 4 Coastal Conservation Area/Foreshore Yard 2.4.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.4.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions City-Wide Stormwater Review The Commissioners are aware that a separate plan change dealing with stormwater comprehensively throughout the city is currently being prepared. It is understood that this Plan Change deals with impervious surfaces, onsite mitigation, improved riparian margin controls and controls relating to hazards such as the 100yr flood plain, overland flow paths and coastal inundation. Plan Change 17 deals with only one stormwater issue – the activity status for stormwater pipes within the coastal conservation/foreshore yard area. The Commissioners consider that this issue is appropriately addressed through Plan Change 17 rather than the stormwater plan change. Areas of Discretion The Commissioners agree with the submission that it would be beneficial for North Shore City to retain discretion over the methods used for stormwater treatment and disposal within the coastal conservation/foreshore yard areas. Direct piping of stormwater is only one method, and may not be the most appropriate. Above Ground Pipes The Commissioners note the officer’s comments that below ground stormwater pipes are not of concern. When they protrude from the cliff face they can however have adverse environmental effects – visually and on cliff stability. In the Commissioners view therefore, the proposed change should be amended to relate to above ground pipes and pipes protruding from cliff faces.

49

Compliance Costs The Commissioners acknowledge that there will be additional compliance costs if alternatives to direct piping of stormwater down the cliff face are sought. They are of the view that these costs are warranted given the increased ability to achieve improved stormwater management and the avoidance of adverse effects on the city’s coastal cliffs. Definition of Infrastructure The Commissioners note that the Operative District Plan already contains the following definition of infrastructure – “means part or all of any facility, not being a building, placed on, over or under the surface of any land in relation to sewage or stormwater disposal; water, gas or electricity supply; telephone or other communications systems and includes any road, whether public or private” and believe that this definition is appropriate as currently worded. Cliff-top Housing The Commissioners disagree with the suggested restriction on housing within 50m of lower cliffs and 100m of very high cliffs and are of the view that such a rule is unnecessary. The vast majority of these cliff areas are already developed and/or are under going redevelopment. It is noted that there are already controls in the Coastal Conservation Area and Foreshore Yard rules which enable potential adverse effects to be addressed. The Commissioners are aware that these controls were the subject of extensive public consultation. 2.4.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions supporting proposed changes to stormwater control in the coastal conservation area be accepted. The further submissions in support be accepted. 8-2 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Further Submissions Support 8-2x358 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 14-5 Axis Consultants Further Submissions Support 14-5x327 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 116-10 Nicolette Hansen 224-3 Bob W Nicholson 230-3 Simon O'Connor 269-2 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 275-3 Ron Sadler

That the following submissions opposing changes to stormwater management in coastal conservation area be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted. 62-1 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 62-1x342 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submission seeking amendments to the proposed plan change to retain discretion in Section 8.4.1.4 over the method(s) used for stormwater treatment and disposal by inserting the following sentence after Design and Implementation of Site Works: "The method(s) used for stormwater treatment and disposal”, be accepted. The further submission in support be accepted.

12-1 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Further Submissions Support 12-1x324 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submission seeking the preparation and notification of a separate Plan Change to address the issue of stormwater be accepted in part to the extent that a citywide plan change dealing with

50

stormwater issues is in the process of being prepared with notification due in early 2007. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 62-2 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 62-2x343 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submission seeking such other additional or consequential relief to achieve consistency with the above and to satisfy the concerns of the submitter be declined. 62-3 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd

That the following submission seeking that no houses should be allowed within 50m of lower cliffs & 100m for very high cliffs be declined. 83-3 Mr R Duffin

That the following submission seeking the inclusion of a definition/explanation in the District Plan of stormwater infrastructure and unseen pipes should not be subject to this assessment be accepted. 167-3 Lane Associates Ltd Cherie Lane

That the following submissions seeking the retention of 8.4.1.4, 8.4.1.5 be accepted. 367-6 Colleen Prendergast That the following submission seeking the amendment 8.4.1.1 to read as follows: "Buildings and structures in the Coastal Conservation Area that do not require stormwater infrastructure shall be Controlled Activities” be accepted in part to the extent that below ground infrastructure is excluded. 367-7 Colleen Prendergast That the following submission seeking the amendment 8.4.1.3 to read as follows: "All stormwater infrastructure, including that required for buildings and structures, in the Coastal Conservation Area shall be a Limited Discretionary Activity be accepted in part to the extent that below ground infrastructure is excluded. 367-8 Colleen Prendergast 2.4.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are: • A change in activity status for stormwater infrastructure in the coastal conservation area is

warranted given the adverse effects that stormwater pipes are having on the visual amenities of the coast and the inability to decline controlled activities;

• Retaining discretion over the methods used for the treatment and disposal of stormwater will enable optimal environmental outcomes to be achieved for the design and location of outfalls;

• A city-wide review is currently underway to address a number of other stormwater issues; • Buildings and structures within the coastal conservation area are a controlled activity. The exclusion

of all buildings from the coast would be difficult to justify given the extent of existing development. • Below ground infrastructure does not have any adverse visual effects and therefore should not be

the subject of the rule, unless it protrudes from a cliff face.

51

2.4.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.5 Topic 5 Landform, Vegetation, Landscaping 2.5.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.5.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Scope of Assessment Criteria The Commissioners note that Rule 16.7.2 contains the assessment criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities and that the criteria do not apply to permitted activities such as a single dwelling on a residential property but would apply to residential units not exceeding 1 per site in the Res 3 zone. They would also apply to residential units not exceeding 2 per site in the Res 2 & 3 zones, residential units 3-5 per site and residential units more than 5 per site – activities which are either controlled or discretionary. The criteria already apply to intensive housing under rule 16.7.3.6. The Commissioners are of the view that the criteria enable an assessment to be undertaken of the appropriateness of alterations to landforms, including natural watercourses and vegetation that are associated with development. They also encourage on site landscaping and low impact stormwater design methods. It is noted that excavations no greater than 1.5m in depth and site works which expose up to 300sqm of surface area of bare earth and retaining walls of less than 1.5m in height above natural ground level are permitted activities and that the criteria should be only concerned with those works over and above that permitted by the plan. Protection of Landforms v Reasonable Development The Commissioners agree that that there needs to be a balance between the protection of landforms and vegetation and enabling a reasonable level of development to occur on a site. They acknowledge that given the undulating topography of much of North Shore City, excavations and retaining walls are often required to achieve useable open space, driveways, footpaths and buildable areas. This is recognised in the District Plan with thresholds of allowable earthworks, excavations and retaining wall heights specified. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that the role of the assessment criteria is to focus the attention on these matters when a resource consent is being considered (for activities exceeding threshold levels specified in the plan) and to guide the assessment of controlled and discretionary activities. Bullet Point 2 Bullet point 2 of the proposed assessment criteria requires that excavations/retaining walls should generally be incorporated within the building footprint. The Commissioners are of the view that this should be qualified to indicate that it is excavations/retaining walls beyond that permitted by the plan, that these be incorporated into the building footprint where this is practical. The Commissioners believe that there is opportunity, especially where multiple dwellings or terrace housing is constructed to utilise the walls of the development as retaining walls thereby mitigating the extent of earthworks and the size of retaining walls required. Bullet Point 3 The Commissioners note that the protection of trees and vegetation is likewise controlled in Section 8 of the District Plan under the general tree protections rules. Bullet point 3 recommends existing mature trees and native bush be incorporated into the site and landscape design. The Commissioners believe that this should also be qualified to relate to trees and vegetation that are protected by the District Plan and those that are not included in any list of noxious plants.

52

Bullet Point 4 The Commissioners note that bullet point 4 requires an assessment of whether areas of native bush and natural watercourses within or adjoining the site are retained and/or not compromised by development in terms of their long-term protection. They are aware that the diversion or modification of any natural watercourse in any zone is already a discretionary activity and that consent from the Regional Council is also required for works affecting a watercourse. Watercourses may also be adversely affected indirectly through the way stormwater is managed, the clearance of riparian vegetation and the proximity of development. The criteria is therefore considered appropriate. Limiting Criteria to Shape Factor One of the submissions raises the issue of narrowing the assessment criteria to relate to existing mature trees and native bush that does not lie within the shape factor described in rule 9.4.5.9 or the site access. Rule 9.4.5.9 requires each site to be able to wholly contain a square of 12m x 12m. The Commissioners understand that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that lots created by subdivision are of a useable shape and able to contain a building platform. The shape factor is not a defined area on a particular lot but a minimum dimension to ensure a lot is useable. Hence the Commissioners believe that it would not be appropriate to limit the assessment criteria to land outside an undefined area. Where possible, it is desirable that those existing mature trees that are appropriate in an urban environment and are protected by the District Plan‘s general tree protection rules and native bush that is protected by the District Plan are incorporated into the site and landscape design. The criteria enable an assessment the suitability of this given the particular circumstances of the site. Landscape Plan Requirement The Commissioners note that a landscape plan is generally only required for controlled and discretionary activities. The assessment criteria 16.7.2 d) requires the site to be landscaped in a manner which will ensure effects are internalised, the character and appearance of the site is compatible with the neighbouring area and an attractive environment is created - thus indicating that a landscape plan is required. Res 3 Zone The Commissioners are of the view that the assessment criteria are appropriate in the Res 3 zone where alterations to landform and loss of native bush are also occurring or potentially could occur in the future. 2. 5.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submissions supporting changes to landform, vegetation & landscaping be accepted in part to the extent that the proposed assessment criteria are retained but amended to take into account points raised by submitters. The further submission in support be accepted in part.

83-4 Mr R Duffin 224-4 Bob W Nicholson 230-4 Simon O'Connor 261-3 T Reid-Copus Further Submissions Support 261-3x345 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 269-3 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 275-4 Ron Sadler

That the following submissions opposing changes to landform, vegetation & landscaping be accepted in part to the extent that the proposed assessment criteria are retained but amended to take into account points raised by submitters. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 14-6 Axis Consultants Further Submissions Oppose 14-6x328 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 23-5 Beta Properties Ltd 26-3 Boulder Planning Limited 36-2 Vivienne Bull 39-4 Fiona Butler

53

116-4 Nicolette Hansen 135-3 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 234-2 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 256-2 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd Consultants Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 23-5x338 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submissions requesting the deletion of bullet point 2 in 16.7.2 which reads: “ excavations and retaining walls/structures should generally be incorporated within the building footprint” be accepted in part to the extent that the criteria only applies to excavations/retaining walls beyond that permitted by the plan. 21-2 G Bennison 26-8 Boulder Planning Limited

That the following submission seeking the rewording of bullet points 3 & 4 in 16.7.2 as follows (or similar wording): “Existing mature trees of a form and species appropriate to the built environment and native bush not located within the shape factor as described in Rule 9.4.5.9 or the site access should be incorporated into the site and landscape design. Areas of native bush and natural watercourses not located within the shape factor as described in Rule 9.4.5.9 or the site access should be retained and/or not compromised in an unmitigated manner by the development …” be accepted in part to the extent that the wording existing mature tree and vegetation protected by this plan is to be incorporated into the criteria. The further submissions in support be accepted in part. 21-3 G Bennison Further Submissions Support 21-3x192 Beta Properties Ltd 21-3x363 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society That the following submission opposing excavations and retaining walls/structures generally incorporated within the building footprint – current excavation controls remain in place, or a volume control be introduced instead of/in conjunction with the area control be accepted in part to the extent that the criteria only applies to excavations/retaining walls beyond that permitted by the plan. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 72-1 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 72-1x320 Clime Asset Management Limited That the following submission seeking clarification that the new assessment criteria relating to landform, vegetation & landscaping do not apply to the Res 3 zone, or delete them be declined. 57-8 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission seeking that the building design and site layout control proposed in all zones be modified to apply only to built zones and that landscaping requirements be added for all developments be accepted in part to the extent that landscaping may be required as a condition of resource consent. 221-5 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch 2. 5.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are:

54

• The proposed assessment criteria apply only to controlled and discretionary activities. The predominant form of development in the city – a single dwelling on a residential property is therefore not affected;

• The assessment criteria concerning excavations/retaining walls should generally be incorporated within the building footprint is qualified to indicate that it is excavations/retaining walls beyond that permitted by the plan as there is opportunity, especially where multiple dwellings or terrace housing is constructed to utilise the walls of the development as retaining walls thereby mitigating the extent of earthworks and the size of retaining walls required;

• The assessment criteria concerning the incorporation of existing mature trees and native bush into the site and landscape design is amended to address whether the design and location of buildings accommodates existing mature trees and native bush protected by the plan and incorporates these into the site and landscape design, excluding any noxious trees;

• The assessment criteria concerning whether areas of native bush and natural watercourses within or adjoining the site are retained and/or not compromised by development in terms of their long-term protection is appropriate. Works directly affecting a watercourse require the consent from the Regional Council. Areas of native bush and watercourses may also be adversely affected indirectly through the way stormwater is managed, the clearance of riparian vegetation and the proximity of development and it is appropriate that the assessment criteria deal with this issue.

• The shape factor is not a defined area on a particular lot but a minimum dimension to ensure a lot is useable. It would therefore not be appropriate to limit the assessment criteria to land outside an undefined area.

• The proposed criteria are equally applicable in the Res 3 zone where alterations to landform and loss of native bush are also occurring or potentially could occur in the future.

2.5.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 6.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 6.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Infill Issues The Commissioners are aware that the infill issues in the Res 4 sub zones relate to the cramming of too large a dwelling on too small a site. They are aware that design options are typically compromised by the existing dwelling(s). In addition, allowing up to 20 sqm of the access strip to be included in the net site area effectively reduces the lot size further to around 330 sqm. The existing activity status of controlled activity does not provide the Council with any ability to decline poorly designed proposals (as controlled activities must be granted consent). The issue is also sometimes linked with multiple infringements of the development controls which individually are not significant but cumulatively represent over-development of small sites. Although infill potential is limited (estimated to be approximately 10% of lots), the Commissioners are aware that many of the remaining sites capable of accommodating infill development have constraints such as steep topography, existing mature trees and native bush and existing dwellings that compromise good design and the development of these sites is resulting in adverse environmental effects. Regional Policy Statement The Commissioners note that the proposed changes to that Regional Policy Statement place less emphasis on infill development accommodating population growth and much greater emphasis on development in town centres and around public transport nodes. Design Many of the submitters have emphasised the fact that good design is the key to addressing infill issues and this is acknowledged by the Commissioners. The Commissioners concur with the comments by many submitters that increasing the minimum lot size to 450 sqm as proposed under the plan change may not

55

necessarily result in better design, but they are of the view that a larger lot size will provide opportunity to mitigate the effects of poor design to some degree as a result of the greater space. It is acknowledged that the smaller the lot size, the more critical design becomes if a high quality urban environment to be achieved. Where “parent” sites are redeveloped and the existing dwelling is either removed or relocated onsite and substantially upgraded, the Commissioners are of the view that there is greater ability to achieve a better design outcome as the constraints imposed by the existing dwelling are removed and the compatibility between the existing dwelling and the new one is not an issue. They therefore are of the opinion that a minimum net site area of 1/400 in the Res 4A and 1/400 in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) is appropriate, as is the historical distinction between the two subzones (Res 4A and 4B). They are also of the view that there should still be the opportunity to develop on smaller infill sites of 400 sqm where the existing dwelling is retained, but the activity status needs to be appropriate to enable poorly designed proposals to be declined. Limited discretionary activity status is therefore considered more appropriate. Under this approach the Commissioners acknowledge that there will be some loss of infill development potential but the opportunity to achieve better quality infill housing will be enhanced. It is acknowledged that there may be a slowing down in the uptake of the remaining infill potential as landowners wait until existing properties/housing stock are prime for redevelopment. The Commissioners prefer an approach that enables and encourages the redevelopment of sites and this would acknowledge some of the concerns raised by submitters relating to – equity/fairness, development expectations, property values whilst still addressing the concerns raised by submitters supporting the plan change and Councillors/Community Board members. The Commissioners acknowledge the point put forward by many submitters that it would be inequitable if the last remaining properties in an area were unable to be further developed when all around them, properties already have two or three dwellings. Increasing the min net site area to 400 sqm will continue to allow for some infill development on the larger lots and enable to range of lot sizes to be retained. The Commissioners acknowledge that the existing character of residential areas is already largely established by over three decades of infill development but are aware that many of the remaining lots with infill development potential have environmental constraints. If these lots are developed at the densities permitted by the Operative District Plan, adverse environmental effects may result. A definition of parent lot is required as a consequence of the changes. The Commissioners preference is for the following definition suggested by the submitters: parent lot/site – “means the allotment or site as it existed prior to any infill development or subdivision”. The following definition of Infill development is also preferred: – “means any development where two or more units (excluding minor residential units) are located on the same site which has earlier been subdivided and a single unit has been erected”. The word site needs to be amended to refer to “parent lot or site”. Concurrent Land Use & Subdivision Consents The Commissioners are of the view that the current requirement to prepare land use consents as a prerequisite for subdivision on sites less than 450 sqm should be deleted. Advice received from Environmental Services officers is that many of the designs are only proposed to achieve the subdivision consent and the lot is then subsequently sold and the new owners prepare their own design. The Commissioners agree that this is a waste of resources – of both the designer and ES planners assessing the proposal. The subdivider will however be required to demonstrate that there is a building platform of the minimum dimensions specified able to be accommodated on the proposed new lot, as is the case for any subdivision. Delineated Area Rule/Communal Entrance Strip The Commissioners note that Rule 16.6.2.2 requires that each residential unit shall have associated with it an area of land referred to as the delineated area. Proposed Plan Change 17 deletes from the rule, the ability to include up to 20 sqm of communal entrance strip in the delineated area. This rule effectively reduces the min net site area by up to 20 sqm. Communal entrance strips are for occupants to access their properties and do not serve any open space or buildable area function. On rear lots which do not benefit from the openness of the adjacent street a further reduction of 20 sqm from a lot size of 350 sqm is significant (5.7% of the total site area). In the evidence presented by the submitters, the Commissioners

56

did not hear any compelling reason why the ability to reduce the min net site area by up to 20 sqm should be retained. They are also of the view that a consequential amendment to the definition of delineated area is required to give effect to the submissions supporting the deletion of the ability to include up to 20sqm of communal access strip in the delineated area. This amendment is required to ensure that the delineated area is available for the exclusive use of the particular unit, notwithstanding that a portion of the communal open space can be included under rule 16.6.2.4. The delineated rule also contains control flexibility that enables the minimum lot size in the Res 4B zone to be reduced to 400 sqm where this reduction is necessary due to the location of an existing dwelling or a significant tree(s), provided that the average delineated area in the development is not less than 450 sqm. The Commissioners are of the view that given the proposed recommended changes to the Res 4A & 4B zones it is appropriate that this rule be retained. Structure Plan Requirement The Commissioners point out that the requirement for the preparation of a structure plan on sites of 5000 sqm or larger reflects the proposed changes to the Regional Policy Statement. Essentially this is an “information” requirement so that wider issues such as roading links, pedestrian access, the provision of parks and reserves can be addressed when larger properties are subdivided/developed. Assessment Criteria In addition to the plan change, the Commissioners also recommend that design guidelines be prepared to demonstrate how high quality infill development can be achieved. These guidelines should then be used to inform any necessary changes to the existing assessment criteria. In the interim, the assessment criteria in section 16.7.2 of the District Plan would be adequate. The Commissioners note that proposed assessment criteria 16.7.2 e) iv) requires that the bulk, design and appearance of buildings is compatible with the established neighbourhood character, or in an area undergoing redevelopment, the desired future character. Submissions have raised the point that the term “desired future character” is ambiguous and does not provide any assistance in assessing resource consents. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that the criteria should be elaborated to refer to the desired future character as described in an approved structure plan or similar document for the area (if applicable). Proposed criteria 16.7.2 e) v) requires the bulk of the dwelling and associated accessory buildings to be appropriate to the size of the lot and compliance with height in relation to boundary, site coverage, minimum permeable area and private open space requirements are achieved. The Commissioners acknowledge that this criteria is already addressed by 16.7.2 e) iv) and does not provide any additional guidance for the assessment of resource consents and should therefore be deleted. Bulk & Location Rules The Commissioners are aware that some submitters sought the retention of the existing min net site areas/densities but a tightening up on bulk and location rules. They note that the Plan Change does seek to achieve a tightening up on some of the rules relating to separation distances, visual privacy, open space and the setback of garages and carports from the street frontage. Zones/Areas of Special Character As an alternative to increasing the min net site areas, it has been suggested by some submitters that additional zones or areas of special character be identified that are not suitable for infill development because of that special character. The District Plan already identifies residential areas of special natural or built character through the Res 1, 2 and 3 zones. The purpose of the plan change was to primarily address issues relating to infill development in the main residential areas – the Res 4 zones. The next review of the District Plan may reveal areas currently zoned Res 4 that are more appropriately zoned Res 2 or another zone but in the view of the Commissioners, this is outside the scope of this plan change. Comprehensive Housing/Terrace Housing Submitters have raised issues relating to comprehensive housing developments and terrace housing. The Commissioners point out that the Comprehensive Housing provisions were deleted from the District Plan in 2002 by Plan Change 1. Terrace housing is provided for as a controlled activity in Res 4A for up to three units (Res 4B – 2) and as a discretionary activity for more than 3 units (Res 4B – more than 2). In

57

both cases the number of units must be in accordance with the density rules. In the Commissioners view, terrace housing can be compatible with single detached housing provided the densities are the same. Housing Affordability The Commissioners are of the opinion that enabling properties to be developed at a density/min net site area of 1/400 sqm as opposed to the proposed 1/450 sqm in the Res 4A zone will assist in housing affordability. The Res 4 zones represent a significant resource and comprise just over half (50.4%) of the residential zoned land in the city. In the Commissioners view, it is important that affordable housing options are available in the principal residential zone of the city. Redevelopment The Commissioners are of the view that providing for the redevelopment of sites will encourage gentrification of the city’s housing stock. Such an approach acknowledges that the city is moving from an infill phase into redevelopment and more intensive development in and around town centres and along selected corridors and facilitates this. This will result in ongoing continuous small scale development so a neighbourhood gradually changes over time. Redevelopment of areas also provides the funds in development levies and reserve contributions to improve local amenities and infrastructure. The approach adopted in this decision promotes a sustainable use of urban land resources while better enabling the mitigation of adverse effects though a combination of better design, an increase in lot sizes and the ability for Council to decline poorly designed proposals. The Commissioners therefore believe that the changes provide the Council with the tools necessary to achieve higher quality design outcomes and that this is a more appropriate approach than the total banning of infill on sites of less than 450 sqm. Policy Commitment to intensification The Commissioners note that the Auckland Regional Council has requested that an explicit policy commitment to intensification to offset the reduced contribution of infill development to meeting the demand for housing in North Shore City. As a result of this decision, there will continue to be potential for further infill housing. It is noted that Section 6.3 Urban Growth Strategy of the District Plan already states that growth will occur through the consolidation of development in built up areas and new development on the periphery and that a differentiated pattern of residential development will emerge in built-up areas, ranging from higher density intensive housing adjacent to commercial centres, or along selected main transport routes where appropriate, to lower density housing in areas of high natural and built amenity value. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that the District Plan already contains a commitment to intensification around selected nodes, via the Residential 6 zone. Further changes to the NSC District Plan may be required once the changes to the RPS are finalised. Savings Clauses The Commissioners are of the view that with the changes to the Res 4A and 4B zones, the proposed savings clauses and amendments sought are required. The following changes are however recommended to address existing developments, subdivision and development partially completed prior to the plan change or undeveloped lots that were created by subdivision prior to the plan change: • That the savings clause for minimum lots sizes in the Res 4A & 4B zoned to read: ‘or any residential

unit lawfully established between Oct 1994 and 6 April 2006”. • Amend the exception clause for Res 4A & 4B to enable completion of landuse and subdivision process

as if the plan change had not occurred. 2.6.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions requesting the refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.3. Housing Choice, and the retention of current provisions be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 265(a)-7 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-7 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants

58

That the following submission seeking the refusal of the proposed changes to section 16.4.4 and retain as is be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The policies are amended to reflect these changes. 265(c) -13 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants That the following submission requesting that as additional policies, 16.6.4.4 policies 3 & 4 be retained, be accepted. 367-10 Colleen Prendergast That the following submissions seeking the refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.5.1 Determination of Activity Status and retain as is be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 265(a)-8 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-8 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants That the following submissions supporting proposed changes to min lot sizes be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings.. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 155-2 Richard Kane Further Submissions Oppose 155-2x152 Mr Steve Mitchell Support 155-2x351 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 183-1 Debbi Lyons Further Submissions Oppose 183-1x151 Mr Steve Mitchell 261-4 T Reid-Copus 269-4 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 272-1 Helen Ryan

That the following submission requesting the introduction of additional zones with a graduated lot sizes reflecting land values be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted. 3-2 Everard Allison Further Submissions Oppose 3-2x153 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission requesting that a 350 sqm lot size for vacant sites be introduced both for new land developments and existing with the original dwelling removed and 450 sqm lot size for infill sites where the original dwelling is retained be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net

59

site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings.. The further submission in support/opposition be accepted in part. 3-3 Everard Allison Further Submissions Support in Part and Oppose In Part 3-3x154 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission requesting that the savings clause for minimum lot sizes in the Res 4A & 4B zones to read: “or any residential unit lawfully established between Oct 1994 and 6 April 2006” be accepted. 8-4 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services

That the following submissions opposing changes to Res 4A &/or 4B zones, and seeking that they be retained as is be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 3-1 Everard Allison 4-1 Allison Architects 6-1 Peter Anderson 7-1 Vaughan Anderson 9-1 David Anstiss 11-2 Angela Ashby 19-2 Beem Holdings Ltd Deirdrie McKenna 23-2 Beta Properties Ltd 23-6 Beta Properties Ltd 26-7 Boulder Planning Limited 28-2 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 33-2 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-11 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-11 Buildcorp Management Ltd 38-2 Bruce Bushett 44-3 Murray Calder 45-1 Don Campbell 46-2 P M Campbell 50-1 Chat Investments Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 51-1 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 55-1 Kwang Yong Chung 56-1 Sarah Jane Mair City View Properties Ltd 60-1 Alan Collie ABC Properties Ltd 63-2 Colin Maxwell Couch 67-2 Dennis Crampsie 76-2 Garry Denley 79-1 M J Dobbyn 79-3 M J Dobbyn 80-1 S H Dodhy 85-2 Jacqueline Dykstra 83-5 Mr R Duffin 88-2 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd 91-2 Eta Property Trust 96-2 Chris Fischer 97-2 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 98-2 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes 101-2 Anna Gibb 102-2 John Gibb 105-2 GMP Investments

60

106-2 Adam Gower GMP Investments 107-2 Donna Gower GMP Investments 108-1 Kevin Grainger Precise Building Management Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 108-1x247 Kevin Grainger 109-2 Michael Grainger Further Submissions Oppose 109-2x249 Kevin Grainger Support 109-2x242 Neil Gunderson 112-1 Guardian Developments 113-2 Marilyn Hamlyn 114-2 Paul Hamlyn Kokiri Developments 118-1 Mark Harper Further Submissions Support 118-1x367 Mark Harper 123-2 Richard Hayes 125-2 Melissa He 127-5 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor 133-1 Doug Howard 136-1 Keith S Humphries 5H's Design Studio Ltd 137-2 Dave Hunt 140-2 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 141-2 Heng Ing 142-2 Mrs Muny Ing 143-2 Nicole James 146-11 JoelFlo Trust 147-2 Alex Johnston 148-1 Colin Jones Jaycke Holdings Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 148-1x252 Meng Wang 149-2 E A Jones 150-2 Sharlene Jones 151-2 Ty Jones 152-1 Yvonne Jones Further Submissions Oppose 152-1x253 Meng Wang 153-2 JWL Investments Ltd 156-2 Grant Kearney 161-2 Kokiri Developments C/- Paul Hamlyn 162-2 Charles Kong Further Submissions Support 162-2x39 HNZC 162-2x370 Charles Kong 166-2 Sandra Lane 168-2 Logan Latham 169-2 Robert Lavender 170-2 Sheila Lavender 172-2 Sean Levy 173-2 Nichole Lewis 174-1 Yuding Li 175-1 Amy Li 176-1 Sheng Li Further Submissions Support 176-1x371 Sheng Li 177-2 Christine Lim 178-2 Robert Lochore Lochore's Real Estate 179-2 Longyan Properties Ltd 182-1 Jim Luo 186-2 Lindsay and Lynda Mackie 188-1 Sarah and Chris Maffey

61

187-2 David Maconaghie 191-2 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd 193-2 Gordon Martinsen 197-2 M W McCarthy 198-2 Joanne McClean 200-2 Deirdre McKenna 206-2 Brian Mearns 201-4 The McLellan Family Trust 204-3 Michael and Janet McQuillan 210-1 J E Mitchell 215-1 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 216-1 Kuganasen Naidoo 218-2 Robyn Ann Neil 220-2 New Zealand Defence Force 224-5 Bob W Nicholson 230-5 Simon O'Connor 232-2 Alex Oldham 234-3 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 237-1 I Parker 239-2 Christopher Alan Pattison 240-1 John S Paull Further Submissions Support 240-1x40 HNZC 242-2 Sarah Pearce 244-2 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 246-2 Adam Pink-Martin 247-2 Shona Pink-Martin 250-1 R M Post 251-2 Craig Potter Team Design 252-2 Kirsty Potter Team Design 253-2 Pride Properties Ltd 254-1 Karen Radley 255-1 M A Radley Further Submissions Support 255-1x41 HNZC 256-3 Rangitoto Holdings 257-1 Chris Reade 258-2 L M Reddington 259-2 P J Reddington 260-2 Steven W Reddington 264-2 Risto NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman 265(a)-1 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(a)-5 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-17 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 265(c)-12 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 265(c)-14 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 266-1 Ann Robertson 270-2 Herb Rutley 271-2 Stuart Rutley 277-2 Matt Salmond 279-2 Leighton Sauni 282-2 Igor Segroutes 284-2 Sharlene Jones Sharty Ltd 285-2 Ty Jones Sharty Ltd 287-2 Donna Shields 288-2 Scott Shields 290-2 Simon Yates Planning Limited 296-2 Tim Smith 301-2 Shari Stapleton 304-2 Ian Stewart 305-2 Mark Stewart 306-2 S M Stodart 308-1 Suibin Su and Yuhong Luan idc 309-1 Su Suibin 311-2 Evelyn Tate 312-2 Darren Taylor 316-2 Ross Douglas Thurlow 320-3 Mr Alan Tresadern 321-2 Christina M Trinnaman

62

322-2 Stuart Robert Trinnaman 323-2 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 332-1 Steve Walker 334-1 Shaolian Wang 337-2 Julie Waymouth 339-2 Westlake Properties Ltd 340-2 David Whitburn Fuzo 342-1 Anna Wills and Wills Family 349-2 Brad Worthington 350-2 Merrilyn Joy Worthington 351-2 Rex Worthington Further Submissions Oppose 23-2x335 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 349-2x322 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support 17-2x149 Mr Steve Mitchell 23-2x148 Mr Steve Mitchell 352-1 Don Yang 354-11 Yessam Investments Ltd 356-4 Jennifer Yorke 357-2 Zeta Property Trust 367-9 Colleen Prendergast

That the following submissions opposing the changes and seeking lot size of 300 sqm be declined. 234-4 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd

That the following submissions seeking that the Res 4A & 4B zones be combined but that a minimum lot size of 350 sqm be allowed be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 40-1 David Cairn Further Submissions Support 40-1x33 HNZC 40-1x161 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 41-1 Dee Cairn Further Submissions Support 41-1x34 HNZC 41-1x162 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 42-1 Edwin Percival Cairn Further Submissions Support 42-1x35 HNZC 42-1x163 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 43-1 Sharron Joy Cairn Further Submissions Support 43-1x36 HNZC 43-1x164 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 119-1 Jeffrey Harries Further Submissions Support 119-1x37 HNZC 129-4 D W Hookway Further Submissions

63

Support 129-4x38 HNZC 129-4x146 Mr Steve Mitchell 202-1 B McMichael 207-1 Ho Yuet Meng 209-1 Jonathan Michell 278-1 Melinda Sampson Further Submissions Support 278-1x42 HNZC 278-1x179 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 313-1 Rob terBraak Further Submissions Support 313-1x43 HNZC 313-1x181 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 315-1 Warren D Thorburn Further Submissions Support 315-1x44 HNZC 315-1x182 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 317-2 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 317-2x364 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support 317-2x56 HNZC 353-1 Natasha Yates Further Submissions Support 353-1x45 HNZC 353-1x183 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission opposing the increase in min lot size in Res 4A & 4B – and seeking an increase to 375 sqm along with enforcement of former criteria be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 245-1 Suzanne and Gary Pincevich

That the following submission opposing the change in lot size for the new Res 4 zone of 450 sqm per site, prefer min lot size of 400 sqm and the provisions relating to delineated area of not more than 20 sqm of communal entrance strip to remain in place be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings, but that the ability to include 20 sqm from the communal entrance strip be deleted. 275-5 Ron Sadler That the following submission seeking a min lot size in Res 4A and 4B of 400 sqm be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by

64

existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 86-1 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd 116-5 Nicolette Hansen 117-1 Simon Upton Further Submissions Oppose 117-1x353 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote, North Shore City 235-1 Tony and Delwyn Palmer 294-1 Gordon and Joy Smith 310-1 Rong Tang and Li Lu 328-1 Brian and Jean VanDerVorst 343-1 B M Wilson and G Austin 343-2 B M Wilson and G Austin

That the following submission seeking the retention of the Res 4A zone with a minimum net site area of 400 sqm and Res 4B with a minimum net site area of 450 sqm be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 165-1 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates Further Submissions Oppose 165-1x168 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 165-2 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates Further Submissions Oppose 165-2x169 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission opposing changes to min lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones and requesting that Res 4A & 4B be maintained as they already have different densities developing for 13 years be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 14-7 Axis Consultants Further Submissions Oppose 14-7x329 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support 14-7x150 Mr Steve Mitchell

That the following submission seeking that Tables 16.2 and 16.6 reflect a density of 350 sqm per unit, with 2-5 units per site provided for as a controlled activity and more than 5 units as discretionary activities be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support be accepted in part.

65

202-4 B McMichael Further Submissions Support 202-4x171 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF, Private Bag, Wellington, Attn: Director Estates

That the following submission supporting a minimum lot size of 600 sqm for any zone rather than the 450 sqm proposed for Res 4A be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted. 327-2 Marilyn, Joy and Michael VanDam Further Submissions Oppose 327-2x145 Lane Associates Ltd

That the following submission seeking that the distinction between Res 4A and 4B zones be maintained and subdivision standards be amended to allow for the total redevelopment of sites subject to development proposals meeting assessment criteria designed to safeguard urban cohesion and amenity values. This could be achieved by amending Proposed Plan Change 17 to: provide for total site redevelopment as a discretionary activity subject to appropriate assessment criteria safeguarding urban amenity and cohesion; setting a min lot size for infill development in both Res zones of 450 sqm; setting a min lot size for total site redevelopment in the Res 4A zone of 350 sqm; and setting a min lot size for total site redevelopment in the Res 4B zone of 400 sqm be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 12-3 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Further Submissions Oppose 12-3x325 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support in Part and Opopose in Part 12-3x155 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission seeking that proposed Plan Change 17 be amended to include an explicit policy commitment to offsetting the reduced contribution of infill development to meeting demand for accommodation in North Shore City implicit in the proposed plan change, consistent with the relief sought by ARC in its submission to NSCC’s Proposed Plan Change 12. This amendment should refer to the promotion of more intensive development in specified high-density centres and corridors via the use of min densities or similar mechanisms. This would give some certainty that the plan change would, if enacted, have a practical effect that is consistent with the provisions and principles of the ARPS, Proposed Change 6 to the be accepted in part to the extent that section 6.3 and 6.4 of the District Plan already contains a commitment to further development around sub-regional town and village centres, via the Residential 6 zone. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 12-4 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Further Submissions Oppose 12-4x156 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submissions seeking the removal of the delineated area and 20 sqm rule – as this reduces requirement for landuse consents be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to include up to 20 sqm of common access in the delineated area is deleted.

14-8 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling 23-8 Beta Properties Ltd 26-6 Boulder Planning Limited 256-5 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

66

That the following submission seeking the deletion of the provision for up to 20 sqm of common access to be included in the delineated area be accepted.

68-2 Trevor Cullen That the following submission seeking the refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.2.2.2 Delineated Area and the associated control flexibility and to retain the plan provisions as they currently are be declined. 265(c)-15 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants That the following submissions seeking that the structure plan provisions at Rule 9.4.5.11 be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be declined. The further submissions in support be declined. 23-7 Beta Properties Ltd 112-2 Guardian Developments 256-4 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd Further Submissions Support 23-7x157 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 256-4x174 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission seeking an increase in the structure plan threshold in proposed Rule 9.4.5.1. to 2 ha be declined. 202-2 B McMichael That the following submission seeking that control flexibility provisions for reducing the min delineated area in Res 4B zone should be reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted. 23-9 Beta Properties Ltd That the following submission seeking that Rule 16.6.2.2 Delineated Area be retained, as amended, but delete Control Flexibility to all Development Controls be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to include up to 20 sqm of common access in the delineated area is deleted. 367-11 Colleen Prendergast

That the following submissions seeking that if Council proceeds with Plan Change to combine Res 4A & 4B zone, the following amendments to Activity Table 16.2 and Rule 16.6.2.3 Density (Table 16.6) are requested: Table16.2 Res units, 2-5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 450 sqm in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – controlled; Res units, 2-5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 400 sqm, in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – limited discretionary; Res units, 2-5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 350 sqm, in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – discretionary; Res units, exceeding 5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 400 sqm, in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – discretionary; Table 16.6 Density – Res 4Min net site area per residential unit – 450sqm, provided that: 2-5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a limited discretionary activity; 2-5units at 350 sqm per unit as a discretionary activity; More than 5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a discretionary activity; be accepted in part to the extent that to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the

67

Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part.

33-3 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-12 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-12 Buildcorp Management Ltd 146-12 JoelFlo Trust 201-5 The McLellan Family Trust 354-12 Yessam Investments Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 33-3x30 HNZC 33-3x158 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 34-12x31 HNZC 34-12x159 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 35-12x32 HNZC 35-12x160 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 146-12x54 HNZC 146-12x167 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 201-5x55 HNZC 201-5x170 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 354-12x57 HNZC 354-12x184 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submissions seeking that the Res 4A & 4B zones be amalgamated and apply the current Res 4A rules of 450 sqm permitted, 2-5 unites at 350 sqm controlled activity and 6 or more units at 350 sqm as a discretionary activity apply be accepted in part to the extent that to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support be accepted in part. 115-2 Jim Hammond Further Submissions Support 115-2x46 HNZC 122-2 Miranda Hawker Further Submissions Support 122-2x47 HNZC 134-2 John Hoy Further Submissions Support 134-2x48 HNZC 138-2 Nicole Hunt Further Submissions Support 138-2x49 HNZC 159-2 Kerry King Further Submissions Support 159-2x50 HNZC 160-2 Wendy King Further Submissions Support 160-2x51 HNZC 249-2 Marisa Poolman

68

Further Submissions Support 249-2x52 HNZC 249-2x173 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 289-2 Signature Homes Further Submissions Support 289-2x53 HNZC 289-2x180 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission requesting that for more intensive development be provided for in the Res 4 zone as a discretionary activity, with a comprehensive set of assessment criteria seeking a high amenity outcome. Each development should include a design statement of support from a qualified urban designer & a registered architect. There should be no minimum site size or density, and general residential development controls should not apply be declined. The further submissions in support be declined and in opposition be accepted. 62-4 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 62-4x344 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support 62-4x165 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission requesting that the ability for infill housing at smaller lots sizes (350 & 400 sqm) in Res 4A & 4B zones be retained but require existing buildings to be removed and place restrictions on subdivision be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 68-1 Trevor Cullen Further Submissions Oppose 68-1x144 Lane Associates Ltd Support in Part and 68-1x166 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission seeking that any requirement to obtain a land use for an additional dwelling as a prerequisite to subdivision be deleted be accepted. 68-3 Trevor Cullen

That the following submission requesting that the ability for 3 or more sites in Res 4B to be reduced in size to 400 sqm be allowed as at present but with non compliance with bulk and location rules being a non complying activity be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 86-3 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd

That the following submission opposing the proposed assessment criteria requiring compatibility with established neighbourhood character be accepted in part to the extent that the criteria is elaborated to refer to the desired future character as described in an approved structure plan or similar document for the area.

69

188-2 Sarah and Chris Maffey

That the following submission requesting that intensification should be allowed as a discretionary activity where neighbouring properties have already been developed be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 195-1 Grant Massey

That the following submission seeking the deletion of the final three paragraphs under the heading “Explanation and Reasons” and replacement with the following or similar: "The minimum lot size in the Res 4 zone has been set at 450 sqm, reducible to 350 sqm per dwelling provided resource consent for a development is first approved. This ensures the character and amenity of sites within the zone is compatible with the zone objective and a full assessment of effects has been carried out prior to development approval” be accepted in part to the extent that the minimum lot size is reducible to 400 sqm. 202-3 B McMichael

That the following submissions seeking that the assessment criteria at Rule 16.7.2(e)(iv) and (e)(v) be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that the assessment criteria 16.7.2 (e)(v) is deleted. The further submissions in support be accepted in part. 23-10 Beta Properties Ltd 256-7 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd Further Submissions Support 33-2x147 Mr Steve Mitchell That the following submission seeking the deletion of the proposed amendment to 16.7.2 e) be accepted in part to the extent that provision 16.7.2 e)v) is deleted. 367-12 Colleen Prendergast

That the following submission seeking the deletion of provision 16.7.2 e) v) be accepted. 202-5 B McMichael

That the following submission seeking that the transition provisions date of 6 April 2006 be amended to a later date be declined. 204-4 Michael and Janet McQuillan

That the following submission seeking that the transition provisions be expanded to include those already exercising rights but not yet made formal applications be declined. 204-5 Michael and Janet McQuillan

That the following submission seeking the amendment of the exception clause for Res 4A & 4B to enable

70

completion of landuse and subdivision process as if the plan change had not occurred. Must include parties who have applied for one but not yet applied for all necessary resource consents, be accepted. 211-1 Alan Moore

That the following submission seeking that density limits and lot sizes should remain as in the current plan but that better outcomes can be achieved by tightening up the activity status and control flexibility of the bulk and location rules be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 221-1 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch Further Submissions Oppose 221-1x347 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote, North Shore City

That the following submission seeking the addition of a rule to clarify how subdivisions of existing developments will be treated including conversion of cross leases be accepted. 221-8 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch

That the following submission seeking the addition of a clause to Rule 16.6.2.3 Density, Table 16.6 clarifying that a new dwelling on an existing lot of less than 450 sqm is a controlled activity be accepted. The further submissions in opposition be declined. 225-3 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Further Submissions Oppose 225-3x115 Pam Dalton 225-3x172 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF 225-3x219 Beta Properties Ltd 225-3x314 Clime Asset Management Limited Environmental Law Chambers

That the following submission seeking the refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.6.2.3 Density and Table 16.6 and the retention of the current provisions be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 265(c)-16 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants

That the following submission seeking that the controls on infill be toughened up but that infill be allowed for them on their merits be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings.

227-1 Evelyn Norton

71

That the following submission seeking that subdivision of less than 450 sqm be allowed to homeowners who have lived on a property for a significant time and had previously intended to develop their property when the timing was right be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 241-1 Francis Payne

That the following submission seeking that the control flexibility provisions for reducing the minimum delineated area in Res 4B zone be reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted. 256-6 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submission requesting that reference to building length control be included in 16.7.2 e (v) – Building Design & Site Layout criteria be declined. 263-1 Brian Rickard

That the following submissions seeking the refusal of the Plan Change 17 provisions and the retention of the current lot size provisions and development controls in the Res 4 zones be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. 265(b)-10 Mr CWR Ritsma 265(c)-11 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants

That the following submission seeking provision for greenfields and brownfields development of up to 3 residential units as a permitted activity to a density of 1 dwelling per 350 sqm within the Residential 4 zone be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submission in support be accepted in part. 268-1 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland Further Submissions Support 268-1x177 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF That the following submission seeking provision for greenfields and brownfields development of more than 3 residential units as a controlled or limited discretionary activity to a density of 1 dwelling per 350 sqm within the Res 4 zone be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings. The further submission in support be accepted in part.

72

268-2 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland Further Submissions Support 268-2x178 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission seeking the provision of a clear and unambiguous set of criteria for the assessment of greenfields and brownfields proposals to ensure they achieve a satisfactory level of amenity whilst providing a reasonable degree of certainty, to the satisfaction of the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that District Plan already contains assessment criteria which is to be amended. Further it is recommended that design guidelines for infill housing be prepared and that additional assessment criteria be derived from these guidelines. This criteria will need to be the subject of a further plan change. 268-3 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland

That the following submission seeking definitions for greenfield and brownfield developments that include large site developments where some existing buildings are proposed to be retained, to the satisfaction of the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that definitions of greenfield and brownfield development are introduced. 268-4 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland

That the following submissions seeking consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief sought, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings; the District Plan already contains assessment criteria which is to be amended. Further it is recommended that design guidelines for infill housing be prepared and that additional assessment criteria be derived from these guidelines. 33-4 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-13 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-13 Buildcorp Management 146-13 JoelFlo Trust 201-6 The McLellan Family Trust 354-13 Yessam Investments Ltd

That the following submissions seeking any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns be accepted in part to the extent that infill housing on a min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for as a permitted activity in the Res 4A & 4B zones; infill housing on a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) be a controlled activity where the parent lot is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed; and infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in the Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (for 3-5 dwellings) where the parent lot contains an existing dwelling or dwellings.

33-5 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-14 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-14 Buildcorp Management Ltd 62-5 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd 146-14 JoelFlo Trust 201-7 The McLellan Family Trust 268-5 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland 354-14 Yessam Investments Ltd

73

6.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • There are infill issues in the Res 4 zones of North Shore City resulting from the cramming of too

large dwellings on too small sites and where the achievement of good design outcomes are often compromised by existing dwelling(s);

• The proposed changes to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement place less emphasis on infill development accommodating future growth and greater emphasis on development in town centres and transport nodes;

• Improving the quality of design is the key to addressing infill housing issues; • Where infill development takes place on a parent site containing existing dwelling(s), a minimum lot

size of 450 sqm in the Res 4A & 4B zone is considered appropriate. The larger lot size will assist in the mitigation of adverse effects associated with new dwelling(s). A residential unit can therefore be provided for as a permitted activity;

• Where infill development takes place on a parent site containing existing dwelling(s), a min net site area of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (3-5 units) should be able to be created by subdivision (a limited discretionary activity as is currently the case), but the subsequent development of a residential unit on such sites should be a limited discretionary activity so that poorly designed proposals that are incompatible with the existing dwelling or dwellings and adjacent properties can be declined;

• Where a site is redeveloped and existing dwelling(s) are removed or relocated, there is greater ability to achieve a good design outcome than if infill development occurs around existing dwellings. In such situations, it is appropriate that the min net site areas of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (on larger sites capable of 3-5 dwellings) is provided for;

• The deletion of the requirement for concurrent subdivision and land use consents recognises that the current approach is not encouraging good design with many proposals submitted purely to obtain subdivision consent;

• The requirement for the preparation of a structure plan when sites of 5000 sqm or greater are subdivided/developed reflects the proposed changes to the Regional Policy Statement;

• The preparation of infill housing guidelines will assist in achieving higher quality design by providing examples and possible design solutions;

• The deletion of the ability to include up to 20 sqm of the communal entrance strip in the min net site area recognises that the entrance strips function is to provide access to a lot and it serves no buildable or open space function and its inclusion results in a reduction of the net site area;

• Savings clauses are necessary to enable the completion of landuse and subdivision process either underway or planned prior to the notification of the plan change;

• Amendments to the definition of infill development and the inclusion of a definition of parent lot/site and greenfields, brownfields development are necessary to give effect to the above changes;

• Retention of control flexibility for the delineated area in the Res 4B zone is considered appropriate given the recommended changes to the District Plan provisions relating to infill housing in the Res 4A and 4B zone;

• The proposed changes recognise the need to improve the quality of infill housing design and to provide a variety of lot sizes but and to balance this with historical development patterns, land owners expectations, housing affordability issues, issues of equity and fairness and the fact that the character of neighbourhoods has largely been established by over three decades of infill development.

2.6.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.7 Topic 7 Intensive Residential Development Res 2A Zone 2.7.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing in contained in section 1.4.

74

2.7.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Incentive for the Protection of Bush The Commissioners acknowledge that there needs to be an economic incentive for the protection of bush in the Res 2A zone and that standard subdivision and development approaches could result in adverse environmental effects with the gradual erosion of the regenerating native bush and increased earthworks. They therefore agree that provision should continue to be made for apartments in the zone. Bulk & Location Rules It is noted that apartment developments are a discretionary activity in the Res 2 A zone under the Operative District Plan. The bulk and location requirements are therefore a guide to the appropriateness of the development. There is scope therefore through the discretionary resource consent process for some flexibility in height to take account of topography and other site specific characteristics. The Commissioners believe that no additional flexibility is required. The Res 2A zone has a site coverage restriction of 15% or 225 sqm which ever is the greater. The Res 2B and 2C zones site coverage is 35% – the same as the standard residential areas of the city – Res 4 zone. The Commissioners note that one submission seeks that the max site coverage in the Res 2B and 2C zones be reduced to 30%. While these zones have similar characteristics to the Res 2A zone in terms of a high standard of amenity derived from mature trees and bush and there is some merit in such a change, the Commissioners are of the view that such a change lies outside the scope of the plan change and also needs to be investigated further before any such a change is promoted. Compatibility With Res 2A Neighbourhood The Commissioners are aware that the ability to cluster development in the form of apartments in the Res 2A zone reduces development costs compared to conventional housing – thus providing an economic incentive for such forms of development. However the Commissioners are of the view that the permitted higher density of 1/550 sqm compared with the standard density of the Res 2A zone of 1/800 net site area (or 1/1000 gross site area) results in such developments being significantly more intense than the surrounding neighbourhood. Associated with the greater density is increased impervious surfaces from driveways and carparking. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that reducing the allowable density to 1/800 sqm still allows some clustering of development but at a density that is more compatible with development in the surrounding neighbourhood. Assessment Criteria The Commissioners are of the view that the assessment criteria could also be enhanced to enable a more appropriate assessment of the suitability of the proposed development. Presently, the criteria deal with the siting of the apartment building and access on land clear of vegetation and not requiring large scale earthworks. There is also cross reference to the criteria for intensive housing. There is currently no specific reference to the appropriateness of the bulk, location and design to the locality, which is typically characterised by detached single dwellings on bush clad properties. It is therefore the view of the Commissioners that this matter should be added to the assessment criteria. Date of the Effect of the Change It is noted that plan changes have some effect from the date they are publicly notified, unless it is resolved by the Council resolves that its effect shall be only after the change is made operative. 2.7.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submissions opposing changes to the Res 2A zone provisions for apartments be accepted in part to the extent that apartments are to be provided for as discretionary activities but at a reduced density of 1/800 net site area. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 14-11 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling Further Submissions Oppose 14-11x330 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 21-4 G Bennison 23-3 Beta Properties Ltd 23-11 Beta Properties Ltd 26-5 Boulder Planning Limited

75

76-3 Garry Denley 91-3 Eta Property Trust 149-3 E A Jones 177-3 Christine Lim 206-3 Brian Mearns 224-6 Bob W Nicholson 234-5 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 239-3 Christopher Alan Pattison 246-3 Adam Pink-Martin 247-3 Shona Pink-Martin 256-8 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 258-3 L M Reddington 259-3 P J Reddington 260-3 Steven W Reddington 279-3 Leighton Sauni 301-3 Shari Stapleton Further Submissions Oppose 23-3x336 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 320-4 Mr Alan Tresadern 357-3 Zeta Property Trust 367-13 Colleen Prendergast

That the following submission requesting that the status quo remain for intensive forms of development within the Res 2 zone provided that there is strict enforcement for the preservation and enhancement of native bush areas be accepted in part to the extent that apartments are to be provided for as discretionary activities but at a reduced density of 1/800 net site area. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 317-4 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 317-4x365 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submission requesting a maximum building coverage rule of 30% within the Res 2B & 2C zones to support the current objectives and policies for these areas and the new provisions proposed by part 4 of the plan change be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted and in support be declined. 8-3 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Further Submissions Oppose 8-3x185 Beta Properties Ltd Support 8-3x359 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society That the flowing submissions seeking the retention of terrace housing within the Res 2A zone as a discretionary activity, but with a more appropriate density standard of 1/1000 sqm. The other criteria of rule 16.7.3.7 should remain for terrace housing in this zone subject to the above density revision be accepted in part to the extent that apartments are to be provided for as discretionary activities but at a reduced density of 1/800 net site area. The further submission in opposition and support be accepted in part. 8-5 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Further Submissions Oppose 8-5x360 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support in Part and 8-5x186 Beta Properties Ltd That the following submissions requesting that the intensive residential development in the Res 2A zone be encouraged by increasing the height of development, thereby ensuring the least amount of intrusion on the existing bush be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted and in support be declined.

76

11-3 Angela Ashby 17-3 BCM NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman 19-3 Beem Holdings Ltd Deirdrie McKenna 38-3 Bruce Bushett 96-3 Chris Fischer 101-3 Anna Gibb 102-3 John Gibb 105-3 GMP Investments 106-3 Adam Gower GMP Investments 107-3 Donna Gower GMP Investments 113-3 Marilyn Hamlyn 114-3 Paul Hamlyn Kokiri Developments 123-3 Richard Hayes 143-3 Nicole James 150-3 Sharlene Jones 151-3 Ty Jones 153-3 JWL Investments Ltd 156-3 Grant Kearney 161-3 Kokiri Developments C/- Paul Hamlyn 172-3 Sean Levy 173-3 Nichole Lewis 178-3 Robert Lochore Lochore's Real Estate 187-3 David Maconaghie 200-3 Deirdre McKenna 242-3 Sarah Pearce 264-3 Risto NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman 270-3 Herb Rutley 271-3 Stuart Rutley 277-3 Matt Salmond 284-3 Sharlene Jones Sharty Ltd 285-3 Ty Jones Sharty Ltd 287-3 Donna Shields 288-3 Scott Shields 296-3 Tim Smith 304-3 Ian Stewart 305-3 Mark Stewart 306-3 S M Stodart 312-3 Darren Taylor 321-3 Christina M Trinnaman 322-3 Stuart Robert Trinnaman 337-3 Julie Waymouth 340-3 David Whitburn Fuzo 349-3 Brad Worthington 350-3 Merrilyn Joy Worthington 351-3 Rex Worthington Further Submissions Oppose 349-3x323 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support 11-3x187 Beta Properties Ltd 17-3x190 Beta Properties Ltd 19-3x191 Beta Properties Ltd 38-3x194 Beta Properties Ltd 96-3x199 Beta Properties Ltd 101-3x200 Beta Properties Ltd 102-3x201 Beta Properties Ltd 105-3x202 Beta Properties Ltd 106-3x203 Beta Properties Ltd 107-3x204 Beta Properties Ltd 113-3x205 Beta Properties Ltd 114-3x206 Beta Properties Ltd 123-3x207 Beta Properties Ltd 143-3x208 Beta Properties Ltd 150-3x209 Beta Properties Ltd 151-3x210 Beta Properties Ltd 153-3x211 Beta Properties Ltd 156-3x212 Beta Properties Ltd 161-3x213 Beta Properties Ltd 172-3x214 Beta Properties Ltd 173-3x215 Beta Properties Ltd 178-3x216 Beta Properties Ltd 187-3x217 Beta Properties Ltd 200-3x218 Beta Properties Ltd 242-3x220 Beta Properties Ltd 264-3x221 Beta Properties Ltd

77

270-3x222 Beta Properties Ltd 271-3x223 Beta Properties Ltd 277-3x224 Beta Properties Ltd 284-3x225 Beta Properties Ltd 285-3x226 Beta Properties Ltd 287-3x227 Beta Properties Ltd 288-3x228 Beta Properties Ltd 296-3x229 Beta Properties Ltd 304-3x230 Beta Properties Ltd 305-3x231 Beta Properties Ltd 306-3x232 Beta Properties Ltd 312-3x233 Beta Properties Ltd 321-3x234 Beta Properties Ltd 322-3x235 Beta Properties Ltd 337-3x236 Beta Properties Ltd 340-3x237 Beta Properties Ltd 349-3x238 Beta Properties Ltd 350-3x239 Beta Properties Ltd 351-3x240 Beta Properties Ltd

That the following submission requesting the retention of the ability for apartment housing in the Res 2A zone at lower density with stricter controls be accepted. The further submission be accepted. 68-4 Trevor Cullen Further Submissions Support in Part and Oppose in Part 68-4x195 Beta Properties Ltd

That the following submission requesting that clustered housing near bush should be kept further away from the bush be accepted in part to the extent that the objectives and policies and assessment criteria and the discretionary activity status requires development to be located on land clear of native bush. 83-6 Mr R Duffin

That the following submission supporting the proposed changes to exclude apartments from Res 2 zones but add new rule to the effect that proposed changes take effect from 6 April 2006 for all new applications and earlier applications where the requirement for further information has resulted in the application being placed on hold be declined. 204-1 Michael and Janet McQuillan

That the following submissions supporting the deletion of provisions for intensive housing/apartments in Res 2 zone be declined. 208-1 Victor Meyer 269-5 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 275-6 Ron Sadler 2.7.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are:

• The current density of apartment housing in the Res 2A zone is out of character with the density of

adjacent residential developments; • A reduction in allowable density to the equivalent for single detached housing is more appropriate

and compatible with Res 2A neighbourhoods; • Providing for apartment development but at the reduced densities enables provides an incentive for

clustered development to occur, thereby enabling the retention and protection on regenerating native bush and minimising the extent of earthworks;

• The apartment assessment criteria need to be expanded to address the compatibility of apartment design, bulk and location with the Res 2A environment;

• As apartment developments are a discretionary activity in the Res 2A zone the bulk and location requirements are a guide to the appropriateness of the development. There is scope therefore

78

through the discretionary resource consent process for some flexibility in height and other bulk and location controls to take account of topography and other site specific characteristics.

• While there is some merit in reducing the allowable site coverage in the Res 2B and 2C zones, this matter is outside the scope of the plan change.

2.7.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

2.8 Topic 8 Separation Distances Between Units 2.8.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.8.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions The Issue The Commissioners are aware of the situation where developers are granting consent to themselves on internal rear boundaries (the separation between dwellings) for infill housing. This combined with infill dwellings being squeezed on small sites is resulting in poor design outcomes with dwellings of contrasting design and materials being located in close proximity to one another and adversely affecting visual and aural privacy and amenity values generally. The Commissioners are of the view that there is a need for flexibility to reduce external yards, to take into account different site characteristics, orientation to the sun, the location of mature trees and significant landforms. However, they are also of the view that the ability to achieve neighbours sign-off for yard encroachments (under rule 16.6.1.5(b) ) should not apply to delineated boundaries. In such situations a limited discretionary resource consent should be required so that the effects of any yard reduction can be appropriately assessed. Legal advice obtained by the Commissioners indicates that there is scope through the submission process to make such a change. Design The Commissioners agreed with the point made by submitters that with good design, the space between dwellings becomes less irrelevant. However, they are of the view that good design is more likely to be achieved when the site/property is redeveloped and existing dwelling(s) removed or relocated and/or substantially upgraded. Redevelopment of Sites In situations when redevelopment of a parent site occurs the Commissioners are of the view that there should be flexibility to reduce a yard to 0m (i.e. attached dwellings/units). This will enable efficient use of sites and the fact that the property is being redeveloped means there are no issues regarding incompatible building design and materials and the inappropriate placement of new dwellings in close proximity to existing dwellings. Infill Development For infill development, the Commissioners believe that rule 16.6.1.5 Other Yards should be amended to clarify that clause (b) cannot be used to reduce yards on delineated boundaries, but remains valid in relation to other yards that relate to the external boundaries of the site. Assessment Criteria The Commissioners acknowledge that there is a need to retain control flexibility as a limited discretionary activity for side and rear yards but this could be improved by providing greater guidance in the form of additional assessment criteria, where a reduction in the yard is appropriate. 2.8.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submission requesting that the proviso for delineated area boundaries be excluded, so

79

to prevent that where a site owner provides their own neighbours consent the development within the side or rear yards can occur as a permitted development be accepted.

8-6 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services

That the following submission seeking that 16.6.1.5 Other Yards (a) and the reference to no control flexibility be deleted be accepted.

26-4 Boulder Planning Limited

That the following submission requesting that the reduction in separation distances between units be allowed to be considered on individual cases as a discretionary activity be accepted in part to the extent that any yard reduction is a limited discretionary activity. 27-1 Alan Brabant

That the following submissions opposing or seeking the deletion of the proposed changes to separation distances between dwellings and/or seeking the retention of the status quo be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 14-12 Axis Consultants 21-5 G Bennison Further Submissions Support 21-5x58 HNZC 23-12 Beta Properties Ltd 28-3 Kelvyn Bredenkamp Further Submissions Support 28-3x59 HNZC 33-6 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-9 Buildcorp Investment 35-9 Buildcorp Management Ltd 39-3 Fiona Butler 44-4 Murray Calder 46-3 P M Campbell Further Submissions Support 46-3x60 HNZC 67-3 Dennis Crampsie Further Submissions Support 67-3x61 HNZC 85-3 Jacqueline Dykstra Further Submissions Support 85-3x62 HNZC 97-3 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes Further Submissions Support 97-3x63 HNZC 98-3 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes Further Submissions Support 98-3x64 HNZC

80

109-1 Michael Grainger Further Submissions Oppose 109-1x248 Kevin Grainger Support 109-1x65 HNZC 109-1x241 Neil Gunderson 115-3 Jim Hammond Further Submissions Support 115-3x66 HNZC 122-3 Miranda Hawker Further Submissions Support 122-3x67 HNZC 124-1 Steve Haywood Further Submissions Support 124-1x68 HNZC 134-3 John Hoy Further Submissions Support 134-3x69 HNZC 137-3 Dave Hunt Further Submissions Support 137-3x70 HNZC 138-3 Nicole Hunt Further Submissions Support 138-3x71 HNZC 140-6 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 140-5 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 141-6 Heng Ing 141-5 Heng Ing 142-5 Mrs Muny Ing 142-6 Mrs Muny Ing 147-3 Alex Johnston Further Submissions Support 147-3x72 HNZC 159-3 Kerry King 160-3 Wendy King 159-3x73 HNZC 160-3x74 HNZC 166-3 Sandra Lane Further Submissions Support 166-3x75 HNZC 168-3 Logan Latham Further Submissions Support 168-3x76 HNZC 169-3 Robert Lavender Further Submissions Support 169-3x77 HNZC 170-3 Sheila Lavender Further Submissions Support 170-3x78 HNZC

81

188-3 Sarah and Chris Maffey 193-3 Gordon Martinsen Further Submissions Support 193-3x79 HNZC 198-3 Joanne McClean Further Submissions Support 198-3x80 HNZC

213-3 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design Further Submissions Support 213-3x81 HNZC 218-3 Robyn Ann Neil Further Submissions Support 218-3x82 HNZC 224-7 Bob W Nicholson 232-3 Alex Oldham 234-6 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd Further Submissions Support 234-6x83 HNZC 244-3 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo Further Submissions Support 244-3x84 HNZC 249-3 Marisa Poolman 289-3 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson Further Submissions Support 249-3x85 HNZC 250-3 R M Post Further Submissions Support 250-3x86 HNZC 251-3 Craig Potter Team Design Further Submissions Support 251-3x87 HNZC 252-3 Kirsty Potter Team Design Further Submissions Support 252-3x88 HNZC 256-9 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 263-2 Brian Rickard Further Submissions Support 263-2x89 HNZC 265(a)-2 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma Further Submissions Support 265(a)-2x90 HNZC 265(c)-18 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 283-1 Alan Shanahan Shanahan Architects Ltd Further Submissions Support 283-1x91 HNZC 289-3x92 HNZC 290-4 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates Further Submissions

82

Support 290-4x93 HNZC 303-2 Mr Craig Stevens 311-3 Evelyn Tate Further Submissions Support 311-3x94 HNZC 316-3 Ross Douglas Thurlow Further Submissions Support 316-3x95 HNZC 320-5 Mr Alan Tresadern 332-2 Steve Walker Further Submissions Support 332-2x96 HNZC 354-9 Yessam Investments Ltd 356-3 Jennifer Yorke

That the following submissions supporting the proposed changes to separation distance be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 83-7 Mr R Duffin 117-2 Simon Upton 129-6 D W Hookway Further Submissions Oppose 129-6x250 Meng Wang 183-2 Debbi Lyons 275-7 Ron Sadler

That the following submission seeking that all bulk and location rules are binding with no ability to provide internal consents between sites on the property under development (non compliance to be non complying activity) be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 86-2 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 86-2x196 Beta Properties Ltd 86-2x312 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission seeking to amend provision 16.6.1.5 Other Yards to clarify that clause (b) cannot be used by the owner of a site on which an infill is proposed to grant consent to themselves to reduce yards, but remains valid in relation to other yards that relate to the external boundaries of the site be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 90-2 Environmental Services Division, NSCC Further Submissions Oppose

83

90-2x126 G Bennison 90-2x197 Beta Properties Ltd 90-2x313 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission seeking that the present yard requirements be reviewed to achieve greater flexibility within the delineated area be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained.

221-3 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch

That the following submission seeking the retention of the ability to reduce other yards by a limited discretionary activity application where neighbours consent has not been obtained under rule 16.6.1.5(b), but add additional assessment criteria to 16.7.2(e) to provide greater guidance. The following criteria to be added: The building should not visually dominate adjoining properties; Regard should be had to the relationship of the proposed building(s) and the use, design and location of buildings on the adjoining site(s); Whether suitable avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects is achieved through the design of the proposed building and in particular the design and location of windows, doors and decks” be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined and in support be accepted. 225-4 North Shore City Council Further Submissions Oppose 225-4x116 Pam Dalton 225-4x315 Clime Asset Management Limited Support 225-4x97 HNZC

That the following submissions opposing a firm ruling on boundary distance and each site should be individually assessed to achieve the best benefit – separation distance should be modified where garages occupy part of this space, in which case the distance can be reduced to 2.4m be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained. 245-2 Suzanne and Gary Pincevich

That the following submission requesting the proposed change in regard to separation distances between units is dismissed and that an alternative plan change is sought to remove the side and rear yard provisions of the plan be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained. 317-3 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd

That the following submission requesting a min distance between the living areas of residential dwellings be declined.

342-2 Anna Wills and Wills Family

That the following submissions seeking any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns be accepted in part to the extent that the ability to reduce yards as a limited discretionary activity is reinstated; the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on infill development by

84

neighbours signoff is deleted and replaced by limited discretionary activity; and the ability to reduce yards for delineated boundaries on greenfields development by neighbours signoff is retained.

33-7 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-10 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-10 Buildcorp Management 354-10 Yessam Investments Ltd 2.8.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • Rule 16.6.1.5 b) is currently being used by the owners of sites on which infill is proposed to grant

consent to themselves to reduce yards, thereby resulting in adverse environmental effects and design poor design outcomes with reduced onsite amenity;.

• In situations where redevelopment of a parent site occurs internal rear yards should be able to be reduced to 0m to enable zero lot development as the site is not compromised by existing dwellings, and this provides for the efficient use of land and alternative design solutions;

• For infill development, control flexibility as a limited discretionary activity should be available to reduce yards off delineated boundaries to enable an assessment of the effects of any yard reduction;

• Control flexibility for yards for infill housing is required to take account of different site characteristics, orientation to the sun, location of matures trees and significant landforms;

• Greater guidance on when yards could be reduced is required through the assessment criteria for control flexibility.

2.8.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.9 Topic 9 Visual Privacy 2.9.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.9.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Reasonable Level of Privacy The Commissioners acknowledge the point made by several submitters that complete visual privacy cannot be achieved in an urban environment but that a reasonable level of privacy can be achieved through a combination of appropriate design, separation distances, and/or mitigation measures such as screening, fencing and vegetation. They are also of the view that designers and developers need to have regard to the context in which they are designing/developing a building and part of that context is the location and design of adjacent dwellings and accessory buildings. The Commissioners note that one submitter has requested that before construction begins, a profile is erected to ascertain the effects of a new building on visual privacy. This suggestion is impracticable as resource or building consents would have already been issued. The matter must therefore be addressed at the respective consent stage and visual privacy determined from the plans submitted. Privacy from Decks The Commissioners agree that decks from bedrooms are generally more an architectural feature than a functional living space and are unlikely to compromise the visual privacy of adjacent properties. They therefore agree that the privacy rule 16.6.2.6(c) balconies and decks, be changed to the extent that it applies to any balcony or deck situated adjacent to a living room, and that control flexibility remains for privacy rule infringements as a limited discretionary activity where neighbours consent is not forthcoming.

85

Privacy from Living Rooms The Commissioners are of the view that if a dwelling has two living rooms/spaces, it is entirely appropriate that visual privacy be achieved from both. The fact that one of the living rooms contains a notation that it is the “principal” living rooms does not mean that visual privacy issues are any less significant from the “secondary” living room. They are of the view however that control flexibility should however remain for privacy rule infringements as a limited discretionary activity where neighbours consent is not forthcoming. Definitions The Commissioners note that the definition of principal living room is proposed to be amended by deleting the word “principal”. A submitter has also requested that the wording “other such similar room ”be added to lounge or family room. As discussed above, the Commissioners are aware that there is an increasing trend for dwellings to have more than one living room. In their view, if visual privacy from living rooms is considered important then it should also be achieved for other similar rooms. It is also noted that the plan change introduces a definition of main glazing which was previously undefined. This definition is supported and it is understood that it will provide certainty and not require visual privacy to be measured from smaller windows or opaque or non-transparent glass where visual privacy will generally not be an issue. Protecting Trees & Vegetation It is noted that Rule 8.4.6.6.1 General Assessment criteria outlines the criteria for the assessment of activities affecting protected trees. The criteria do not include reference to the effects of the removal of trees on the visual privacy of adjacent properties. However, the Commissioners are of the view that where trees exist or were planted to achieve compliance with the visual privacy rules, their subsequent removal could result in non compliance with those rules and that this matter is best addressed as a compliance issue with the privacy rules rather than adding any additional tree protection rules.

Separation Distances The Commissioners have noted that some submitters have opposed the separation distance of 10m between living rooms and outdoor living spaces. The requirement is contained in the Operative District Plan and is unaffected by the plan change. It is a means of compliance with the privacy rules but not the only means. A visual screen by such means as an architectural feature, fencing, trellis or vegetative screen or the design of the building may be used to achieve compliance. The Commissioners therefore consider that the 10m specified in the rule is a reasonable distance from which visual privacy can be determined. Letting Individuals Create Their Own Privacy The Commissioners are aware that some submitters have requested that visual privacy be left to landowners or the market to achieve. While this happens to some extent, the Commissioners believe that the problem with this approach is that it is often difficult for visual privacy to be achieved other than through the design of a dwelling. Existing dwellings have limited options available to them. In the Commissioners view therefore, it is more equitable if the responsibility for visual privacy is placed on all parties – the designer of a new dwelling and the owners of existing dwellings. The purpose of the control is to therefore to ensure that a reasonable standard of privacy is maintained. It is noted that the District Plan recognises (in the explanation and reasons) that one of the most significant impacts of further infill development, and development on small sites and one which is of concern to many residents, is the loss of privacy for adjacent sites. Assessment Criteria The Commissioners are of the view that the wording “particularly on smaller sites” is appropriate in assessment criteria 16.7.2 e)i) as it is on smaller sites that factors such as separation distance and vegetation are often unavailable to mitigate adverse effects on visual privacy and the building design and layout becomes critical. They however agree with submitters that the assessment criteria 16.7.2 (e)(vi) is inappropriate because these matters are implicit within other rules contained in the plan. If a development is designed in accordance with the relevant development controls then the form and scale of the development will be consistent with that anticipated by the District Plan. The criteria therefore do not add anything else that is not already covered by the respective bulk and location rules and should be deleted.

86

2.9.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions supporting changes to visual privacy be accepted in part to the extent that visual privacy from all living rooms is required and the definition of living room is amended to include family rooms and other rooms of a similar function. 70-1 Barbara Cuthbert 261-5 T Reid-Copus That the following submission supporting changes to visual privacy and requesting that before construction of a building begins, a profile be erected of the new building to ascertain the effects on visual privacy and blocking of sunlight on properties in the vicinity be accepted in part to the extent that visual privacy from all living rooms is required and the definition of living room is amended to include family rooms and other rooms of a similar function. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 25-1 Daphne Blackshaw Further Submissions Oppose 25-1x193 Beta Properties Ltd 25-1x310 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that the privacy rules be left unaltered and proposals are checked for their impact on neighbours be accepted in part to the extent that the requirement for visual privacy from decks off bedrooms and assessment criteria 16.7.2(e)(vi) is deleted.

227-3 Evelyn Norton That the following submission requesting that very steep sections should not be built on, and visual privacy should be treated on a case-by-case basis be declined. 83-8 Mr R Duffin

That the following submission agreeing that visual privacy should be a consideration & developers should show they have made reasonable effort to mitigate any adverse effects – but not to the extent that existing property owners have a veto be accepted in part to the extent that visual privacy from all living rooms is required and the definition of living room is amended to include family rooms and other rooms of a similar function. 117-3 Simon Upton

That the following submission stating that visual privacy rules may need strengthening be accepted in part to the extent that visual privacy from all living rooms is required and the definition of living room is amended to include family rooms and other rooms of a similar function. 230-6 Simon O'Connor

That the following submissions opposing the changes to the visual privacy rules be accepted in part to the extent that the requirement for visual privacy from decks off bedrooms and assessment criteria 16.7.2(e)(vi) is deleted. 14-13 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling 21-6 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 28-4 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 36-3 Vivienne Bull 39-2 Fiona Butler 44-5 Murray Calder 46-4 P M Campbell 57-7 Clime Asset Management Limited 76-4 Garry Denley

87

85-4 Jacqueline Dykstra 88-4 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd 97-4 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 98-4 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes 115-4 Jim Hammond 122-4 Miranda Hawker 134-4 John Hoy 135-6 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 136-3 Keith S Humphries 5H's Design Studio Ltd 137-4 Dave Hunt 138-4 Nicole Hunt 140-8 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 141-8 Heng Ing 142-8 Mrs Muny Ing 147-4 Alex Johnston 159-4 Kerry King 160-4 Wendy King 166-4 Sandra Lane 168-4 Logan Latham 169-4 Robert Lavender 170-4 Sheila Lavender 198-4 Joanne McClean 206-5 Brian Mearns 218-4 Robyn Ann Neil 224-8 Bob W Nicholson 234-7 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 249-4 Marisa Poolman 251-4 Craig Potter Team Design 252-4 Kirsty Potter Team Design 265(a)-3 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-19 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants 275-8 Ron Sadler 282-4 Igor Segroutes 289-4 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 290-3 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates 311-4 Evelyn Tate 320-6 Mr Alan Tresadern 332-3 Steve Walker 356-2 Jennifer Yorke That the following submission requesting that the privacy rules for 16.6.2.6 c) Balconies & Decks be changed only to the extent that it applies to any balcony or deck situated adjacent to a living room, and that control flexibility remains for privacy rule infringements as a limited discretionary activity where neighbours consent is not forthcoming be accepted. 8-7 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services That the following submission requesting that if any deck or balcony will compromise the privacy of neighbouring houses it not be allowed unless some form of screening is put in place e.g. trees, be accepted in part to the extent that visual privacy from decks off living rooms is to be controlled. 298-1 Shirley Squire That the following submissions requesting that the amendments to Rule 16.7.2(e)(i) and the additional assessment criteria at Rule 16.7.2(e)(vi) be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that assessment criteria 16.7.2(e)(vi) is deleted. 23-13 Beta Properties Ltd 256-10 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submissions requesting that the visual privacy amendments to Rule 16.6.2.6(a)-(c) be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that to the extent that the requirement for visual privacy from decks off bedrooms and assessment criteria 16.7.2(e)(vi) is deleted.

88

23-14 Beta Properties Ltd 256-11 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submissions requesting that the amendments to the visual privacy appendices be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that the requirement for visual privacy from decks off bedrooms is deleted. 23-15 Beta Properties Ltd 256-12 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submissions requesting that the amendments to the definition of “principal living room” be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be declined. 23-16 Beta Properties Ltd 26-9 Boulder Planning Limited 256-13 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submissions requesting that the definition for main glazing should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be declined. 23-17 Beta Properties Ltd 256-14 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submission opposing the requirement for the living room(s) main glazing to be located at least 10m from the nearest site boundary – 10m requirement not be implemented, and that the current visual privacy controls remain in place be declined. 72-2 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd

That the following submission requesting that the visual privacy changes be amended to refer only to decks and balconies adjoining a living room in the building. The definition of living room be amended to read: “means a lounge or family room or such other similar room in a residential unit” be accepted. 90-3 Environmental Services Division, NSCC

That the following submission requesting that the words “particularly on smaller sites” be removed from 16.7.2 e) i) – changes to visual privacy be declined. 116-6 Nicolette Hansen

That the following submission requesting that the words ‘of a smaller …, and” in 16.7.2 e(vi) – Building Design & Site Layout criteria be deleted be accepted. 263-3 Brian Rickard

That the following submission requesting that the words ‘in relation to outdoor living space” be added to the heading of 16.6.2.6 (c) – Visual Privacy be accepted in part to the extent that the requirement for visual privacy from decks off bedrooms is deleted. 263-4 Brian Rickard

That the following submission opposing the requirement for the main glazing of the living room(s) not to be

89

within 10m of the outdoor living space of another unit be declined. 72-3 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd That the following submission opposing the requirement for no part of the balcony or deck to be located within a horizontal distance of 10m of an outdoor living space of another residential unit be declined. 72-4 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd That the following submission requesting that all existing trees native or exotic which provide privacy to neighbouring houses although they haven’t reached the size or height to be protected under general tree protection rules that a covenant in perpetuity be registered against the titles of the lots to be created through subdivision and that the same criteria be registered when any trees are stipulated to be planted to provide privacy to neighbouring houses and any such trees be a mature size be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted and in support be declined. 298-2 Shirley Squire Further Submissions Oppose 298-2x311 Clime Asset Management Limited Support 298-2x326 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 2.9.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • Decks and balconies off bedrooms are generally more an architectural feature than a functional

living space and are unlikely to compromise the visual privacy of adjacent properties and therefore should not be subject to the visual privacy control.

• The definition of living room should be amended to include lounge or family rooms and other similar rooms in a residential unit as the outlook from such rooms has the potential to adversely affect the privacy of neighbours.

• If visual privacy is to be achieved from living rooms and a dwelling has more than one living room, it is appropriate that visual privacy be achieved from all living rooms and other rooms with a similar function.

• There is the ability under the limited discretionary activity provisions to seek alternative design solutions that may not meet the visual privacy rules but meet the intent of those rules.

• The removal of existing trees that assist in visual privacy is best addressed as a compliance issue with the privacy rule rather than adding any additional tree protection rules.

• The 10m separation distance between living rooms and outdoor living spaces referred to in the visual privacy rules is an existing requirement and is concerned with achieving an appropriate separation distance to maintain visual privacy. Other methods are required if such a distance between dwelling is not achieved.

• Leaving visual privacy to individuals and/or the market will not achieve a reasonable standard of privacy for all parties concerned.

• The wording “particularly on smaller sites” is appropriate in assessment criteria 16.7.6.2 e)i) as it is on smaller sites that factors such as separation distance and vegetation are often unavailable to mitigate adverse effects on visual privacy and the building design and layout becomes critical.

• Assessment criteria 16.7.2(e)(vi) is inappropriate because the matters addressed are implicit in other rules in the plan and if development is designed in accordance with these rules then the form and scale of development will be appropriate and consistent with that envisaged by the plan.

9.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision

Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

90

2.10 Topic 10 Private Outdoor Space - Outdoor Living Space 2.10.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.10.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Gradient Control The Commissioners agree that the proposed gradient control should not apply to the entire area of private open space – there needs to be some flexibility to take account of the hilly nature of the landform in North Shore City. The gradient control should therefore apply to that part of the site containing the 6m diameter circle and should relate to the site after the completion of site works. It is noted that this is the approach that has been adopted in the Long Bay Structure Plan. Res 6 Zone It is noted that intensive housing in the Res 6 Zones has a separate outdoor living space requirements in recognition that development in this zone is more intensive and outdoor living spaces, if provided, will be smaller and may include balconies. Alternative Approaches The Commissioners are of the view that where the 6m diameter circle is steeper than 1/5 – a combination of balconies, decks and terracing could be used to achieve useable open space. This is currently possible through a limited discretionary resource consent and will remain so as a result of this decision notice. Purpose of Private Open Space The Commissioners understand that there is a hierarchy of open spaces ranging from regional parks through to local parks. Private open space is primarily for onsite amenity and passive recreation rather than active recreational use. Control Flexibility/Assessment Criteria The Commissioners understand that the proposed changes to control flexibility arose from the continued reduction of outdoor living spaces being sought in relation to infill housing. These are often combined with other infringements, which in isolation are relatively insignificant, but in combination and cumulatively represent over development of sites and consequent loss of onsite amenity. Existing control flexibility provisions provide the ability for Council to consider applications where it is not possible to meet the strict area and dimensional requirements for outdoor living due to physical or topographical constraints on the site. This is common in North Shore City given its hilly terrain. Each application can be assessed on merits in terms of actual and potential effects and Council has ability to grant consent (subject to conditions) or to decline consent as necessary. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that the ability to reduce living court areas and dimensions needs to be retained but that additional assessment criteria be added as a result of submissions to outline the circumstance when a reduction is appropriate. Market Preference The Commissioners note that some submitters suggested that the provision of private open space be left to the market to determine. They are however of view that private open space not only has an onsite amenity value but cumulatively contributes to the amenity values of a neighbourhood and assists in stormwater management. Market forces do not adequately take into account the wider neighbourhood benefits of planning controls such as open space requirements. In addition, with housing affordability becoming an increasingly important issue, many people are willing to trade off amenity values for more affordable housing with a consequent lowering in the quality of housing. 2.10.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submissions supporting proposed changes to outdoor living space be accepted in part to the extent that a gradient control to ensure private open space is useful and additional assessment criteria to assist in determining when a relaxation of the area and dimension controls is appropriate are incorporated into the plan. 117-4 Simon Upton

91

230-7 Simon O'Connor 261-2 T Reid-Copus 261-6 T Reid-Copus 275-9 Ron Sadler

That the following submissions opposing changes to outdoor living space be accepted in part to the extent that the gradient control relates only to the 6m diameter circle and to the finished ground level after site works are completed and control flexibility for the area and dimension of open space be retained but assessment criteria added. The further submissions in support be accepted in part. 14-14 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling 23-19 Beta Properties Ltd Further Submissions Support 23-19x99 HNZC 28-5 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 36-4 Vivienne Bull 39-1 Fiona Butler 72-6 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd 85-5 Jacqueline Dykstra 88-3 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd Further Submissions Support 88-3x103 HNZC 97-5 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 98-5 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes 115-5 Jim Hammond 122-5 Miranda Hawker 134-5 John Hoy 137-5 Dave Hunt 138-5 Nicole Hunt 140-7 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 141-7 Heng Ing 142-7 Mrs Muny Ing 147-5 Alex Johnston 159-5 Kerry King 160-5 Wendy King 166-5 Sandra Lane 168-5 Logan Latham 169-5 Robert Lavender 170-5 Sheila Lavender 175-2 Amy Li 218-5 Robyn Ann Neil 224-8 Bob W Nicholson 244-4 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 249-5 Marisa Poolman 251-5 Craig Potter Team Design 252-5 Kirsty Potter Team Design 256-16 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd Further Submissions Support 256-16x106 HNZC 265(a)-4 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 282-3 Igor Segroutes Further Submissions Support 282-3x107 HNZC 289-5 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 290-5 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates 311-5 Evelyn Tate 320-7 Mr Alan Tresadern 332-4 Steve Walker 352-2 Don Yang 356-5 Jennifer Yorke That the following submissions seeking the retention of the existing control flexibility provisions relating to outdoor living space under clause 16.6.2.4. be accepted. The further submissions in support be accepted.

92

33-8 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd Further Submissions Support 33-8x100 HNZC 34-7 Buildcorp Investment Ltd Further Submissions Support 34-7x101 HNZC 35-7 Buildcorp Management Ltd Further Submissions Support 35-7x102 HNZC 146-9 JoelFlo Trust Further Submissions Support 146-9x104 HNZC 146-15 JoelFlo Trust 201-2 The McLellan Family Trust 201-15 The McLellan Family Trust 234-8 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 303-3 Mr Craig Stevens 354-7 Yessam Investments Ltd Further Submissions Support 354-7x108 HNZC

That the following submissions opposing the requirement for outdoor living spaces to have a gradient of no more than 1:5 be accepted in part to the extent that the rule will apply only to the 6m diameter circle after site works have been completed. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 26-10 Boulder Planning Limited 72-5 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd 135-7 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 263-5 Brian Rickard 317-5 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 317-5x366 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submissions seeking that the gradient control clause only applies to that part of the site that is able to contain a 6m-diameter circle be accepted. 8-8 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services 213-4 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design

That the following submission seeking the deletion of the requirement for 1 in 5 grade for outdoor living space but requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the nominated space can be used in accordance with the Explanations and Reasons in the District Plan for the outdoor living be accepted in part to the extent that the rule will apply only to the 6m diameter circle after site works have been completed and control flexibility will apply. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 221-6 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Further Submissions Oppose 221-6x350 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submission seeking that private open space changes are amended to require such areas to be subject to such additional requirements so as to provide useful outdoor living space of an appropriate size in an appropriate location and that the gradient provision is clarified as to whether it applies to original or finished gradient be accepted in part to the extent that the rule will apply only to the 6m diameter circle after site works have been completed. 90-4 Environmental Services Division, NSCC

93

That the following submissions seeking any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns be accepted in part to the extent that the gradient control relates only to the 6m diameter circle and to the finished ground level after site works are completed and control flexibility for the area and dimension of open space be retained but assessment criteria added. 33-9 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-8 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-8 Buildcorp Management Ltd 146-10 JoelFlo Trust 146-16 JoelFlo Trust 201-2x105 HNZC 201-3 The McLellan Family Trust 201-16 The McLellan Family Trust 354-8 Yessam Investments Ltd

That the following submission requesting that the reduction in open space is dependant on the size and location of buildings be declined. 83-9 Mr R Duffin 2.10.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are:

• A gradient control for private open space is necessary to ensure that such spaces are useable; • The gradient control however should only apply to the 6m diameter circle and after site work have

been completed thereby providing some flexibility to take into account North Shore City’s landform and to avoid extensive earthworks that may be required if the control related to the entire area of private open space;

• On steep sites there should be the ability for a combination of balconies, decks, terracing to achieve useable private open space;

• The Res 6 – Intensive Housing Zone has its own specific outdoor living space requirements in recognition that this zone provides for more intensive housing forms.

2.10.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

Topic 11 Vehicle Crossings 11.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 11.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions The Problem The Commissioners are aware that the driver for the proposed changes to the vehicle crossing rules has been the proliferation of vehicle crossings in some streets which is having adverse effects on the streetscape, pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular safety, stormwater management and on street parking. Legal Requirement for Access The Commissioners note that Section 321 of the LGA 1974 required road access for lots within a subdivision. That section of the Local Government Act has been repealed and replaced by Section 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991 which states: 106. Consent Authority may refuse subdivision consent in certain circumstances – (1) Despite section 77B, a consent authority may refuse to grant subdivision consent, or may grant subdivision consent subject to conditions, if it considers that -

94

(c) sufficient provision has not been made for legal and physical access to each allotment created by the subdivision. The Commissioners understand that the proposed changes to the vehicle crossing rule effectively means that the vehicle crossing standards apply to the parent site prior to its further subdivision or development. Any new crossing would be subject to the Council’s discretion as a limited discretionary activity. Although physical and legal access would not be denied, the sharing of existing vehicle crossings may be required as a condition of subdivision where this is appropriate. Exceptions The Commissioners agree with the submission requesting that the rule be amended to clarify that where a front site is subdivided into two front sites or a through site is subdivided to create two front sites, it is unaffected by the rule as the new site would be entitled to a own vehicle crossings. Visibility Splays The Commissioners understand that visibility splays are not specifically referred in the North Shore City District Plan. They are a tool currently used by Roading and Transport officers to assess compliance of new vehicle crossings with assessment criteria – specifically whether the number and width of crossings and proximity to intersections provides safe ingress and egress of vehicles to the site and safe movement of vehicles on the adjoining road network. Assessment Criteria The Commissioners acknowledged that controls on vehicle crossings should also address the quality of the public streetscape. They are aware that multiple vehicle crossings are resulting in the loss of grass berm space and space for street trees. They understand that these spaces help with stormwater permeability within the road reserve area and assist in enhancing the amenity of streets. They are also of the view that the assessment criteria needs to address the loss of kerbside parking that may result when vehicle crossing are constructed. 2.11.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submissions supporting changes to vehicle crossings be accepted. 83-10 Mr R Duffin 275-10 Ron Sadler

That the following submissions opposing changes to vehicle crossings be declined. 14-15 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling 39-6 Fiona Butler 232-4 Alex Oldham 21-8 G Bennison 36-5 Vivienne Bull 67-4 Dennis Crampsie 23-20 Beta Properties Ltd 256-17 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 127-6 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor 224-9 Bob W Nicholson 234-9 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd

That the following submission requesting additional assessment criteria at 12.5.1.2 be further supplemented with criteria to deal with amenity and stormwater issues be accepted. 8-9 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services

That the following submission requesting provision 12.4.2.7 Vehicle Crossings be amended to confirm that developments where a front site is subdivided into two front sites or a through site is subdivided to create two front sites, are unaffected by the rule be accepted. 90-5 Environmental Services Division

That the following submission stating that on site turning and controls regarding visibility splays would be more appropriate be accepted in part to the extent that the plan already contains onsite manoeuvring controls and visibility splays are specified in the Engineering Code of Practice and are used to assess the

95

suitability of new vehicle crossings. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 230-8 Simon O'Connor Further Submissions Oppose 230-8x109 HNZC 2.11.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are: • Under Section 106 of the RMA a Consent Authority may refuse subdivision consent if it considers

that - (a) Sufficient provision has not been made for legal and physical access to each allotment created by the subdivision. Requiring the sharing of vehicle crossings (e.g. between a parent site and subsequent infill subdivision) where this is practical, will not deny the infill subdivision legal and physical road access.

• Where a front site is subdivided into two front sites or a through site is subdivided to create two front sites, it is unaffected by the rule as the new sites/lots would be entitled to its own vehicle crossings.

• The assessment criteria for vehicle crossings needs to address the quality of the public streetscape as multiple vehicle crossing are resulting in the loss of grass berm space and space for street trees. These spaces help with stormwater permeability within the road reserve area and assist in enhancing the amenity of streets. In addition, the assessment criteria also need to address the loss of kerbside parking that provides for visitor and overflow needs.

2.11.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.12 Topic 12 Setback Garages Carports 2.12.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.12.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions 1m Setback The Commissioners agree with those submitters who stated that the requirement that a garage or carport be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling will be problematic in many infill situations and result in a resource consent being required (for a limited discretionary activity). They agree that on properties where the existing dwelling is already set back towards the rear of the site, there is often no option other than locating a garage or carport forward of the dwelling and that even though the garage may be in front of the dwelling in such situations, its impact on the streetscape is minimal due to the distance from the front boundary. Requiring garages to be behind the associated dwelling may also compromise private open space, particularly where a properties rear yard faces north. The proposed rule will also result in the increase in the length of driveways and impervious surfaces which is not desirable from a stormwater perspective. The Commissioners are therefore of the view that this part of the rule should be withdrawn. Safety Issues In respect of the issues of safety that were raised in the submission process, the Commissioners are strongly of the view that the proliferation of infill housing over the last 2-3 decades has had a significant effect on potential driveway runovers. Infill development has resulted in longer driveways, often serving multiple dwellings, situations where there is inadequate or no onsite reverse manoeuvring thereby resulting in cars backing out onto the street and the loss of backyards which were once safe places for children to play. It is however acknowledged that requiring garages to be recessed 1m behind the front

96

face of the dwelling will add another potential safety problem. The view of the Commissioners is that the plan change should be amended in a manner that ensures it does not further affect the safety of children but the wider issue of driveway runovers needs to be the subject of a separate study and possible future plan change. 5m Garage Door Setback The Commissioners understand that the requirement for the garage door to be set back 5m where it faces the street boundary enables a vehicle to be parked in front of the garage (i.e. a second parking space) without overhanging or obstructing the adjacent footpath. They believe however that the proposed rule needs to be clarified so that it is only where the garage door or carport entry directly faces the street that the 5m setback applies. It is noted that a garage or carport at right angles to the street will typically have a parking space in front of the garage door/carport entry located wholly on the associated driveway that enables a vehicle to be parked in a manner that does not overhang the street. The Commissioners agreed that flexibility from the rule in the form of a limited discretionary resource consent is required where the rule cannot be complied with and for alternative designs and difficult sites. 50% Width Rule The Commissioners note that the proposed rule requiring that garages or carports not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit to which they relate is intended to limit/mitigate the effects of garages/carports on the streetscape. The rule also has the secondary objective of enabling visual contact between occupiers of a dwelling or unit and the street (although this is dependant on the design of the dwelling) rather than having dwellings hidden behind a garage or row of garages. This is in accordance with the CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principal of passive surveillance of streets. The Commissioners support the retention of the rule but believe that further clarification is required. The Commissioners acknowledge that the proposed rule does require clarification as to what constitutes the front face of the dwelling. The following definition is therefore supported: “Front face of the dwelling means the building elevation, excluding any architectural features, on a front or corner site as viewed from the street. On a corner site, the elevation containing the front door shall be deemed the front face of the dwelling. All facades of the building that are at an angle of 45o or less measured parallel with the adjacent street front boundary shall be included ”. They are also of the view that the rule should only apply to situations where the garage door and carport face the street. Garages perpendicular to the street do not have the same impact on the streetscape. The existing control flexibility relating to garages/carports will apply. Therefore proposals that do not meet the requirement will be able to be considered as limited discretionary activity. Submissions have raised the issue that the rule would cause design problems in the higher density residential zones. However, the Commissioners believe adverse effects generated by garages can relate to repetitiveness or to the specific architectural design of the building. This is evident in some large scale new developments”. The proposed rule is therefore even more applicable in medium and higher density developments. A common design is a two-storey dwelling with a ground floor/basement garaging. The Commissioners therefore are of the view that the scenario described above is an acceptable design solution which meets the intent of the rule. The first floor of the dwelling enables visual contact with the street to be maintained and reduces the effect of the garage on the streetscape. In their view, the Commissioners are of the opinion that this scenario should therefore be exempt from the rule. Residential 3 Zone The Commissioners note that in the questionnaire survey for the review of the Res 3 zone controls the majority of respondents agreed that North Shore City Council should be stricter about controlling garages and/or carports in the front yard of properties in the Res 3 zone. The Commissioners have agreed that the requirement for garages and carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be deleted. In the Res 3 zone this issue is already covered in the front yard rule. The effect of the remaining two clauses of Plan Change 17 relating to garages/carports is to place restrictions on the width of the garage and to require the garage door to be setback 5m where it directly faces the street. To achieve the garage door setback the garage will often need to be at right angles to

97

the street or alternatively a limited discretionary resource consent will be required. (Note: accessory buildings, including garages and carports are a controlled activity in the Res 3 zone). The Commissioners are aware that a review of the development controls for the Residential 3 zone is currently underway and submissions have requested that the garage/carport controls for the Res 3 zone be dealt with comprehensively in that review. The Commissioners agree that this approach is the appropriate course of action and that the proposed changes to garages/carports for the Res 3 zone should be withdrawn and the matter be addressed in the forthcoming Res 3 zone plan change. Control Flexibility The Commissioners note that the North Shore City District Plan contains control flexibility as a limited discretionary activity, from the rules in 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports. There is cross reference back to the control flexibility provision for the front yard rules. Assessment Criteria A submitter has requested specific criteria to assess applications for control flexibility for the proposed rule restricting the width of garages/carports in relation to the front face of the dwelling. The Commissioners agree that additional assessment criteria will provide guidance for the assessment of resource consents. 2.12.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions supporting the proposed changes be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m where they face the street; a definition of front face of the dwelling be added; the rule restricting garages and carports to 50% of the front face of the dwelling be modified and additional assessment criteria be added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 261-7 T Reid-Copus That the following submissions requesting the proposed changes to garages and carports be deleted and existing provisions be retained be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; a definition of front face of the dwelling be added; the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones); the rule restricting garages and carports to 50% of the front face of the dwelling be modified and additional assessment criteria be added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. That the further submissions in support be accepted in part. 14-16 Axis Consultants 21-9 G Bennison Further Submissions Support 21-9x125 MO and JE Field 28-6 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 33-15 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-15 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-15 Buildcorp Management Ltd 39-7 Fiona Butler 57-6 Clime Asset Management Limited 67-5 Dennis Crampsie 70-3 Barbara Cuthbert 83-11 Mr R Duffin 85-6 Jacqueline Dykstra 97-6 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 98-6 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes 115-6 Jim Hammond 117-5 Simon Upton 122-6 Miranda Hawker 125-3 Melissa He 134-6 John Hoy 135-9 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 137-6 Dave Hunt

98

138-6 Nicole Hunt 146-2 JoelFlo Trust 147-6 Alex Johnston 155-1 Richard Kane 159-6 Kerry King 160-6 Wendy King 166-6 Sandra Lane 167-1 Lane Associates Ltd Cherie Lane 168-6 Logan Latham 169-6 Robert Lavender 170-6 Sheila Lavender 179-3 Longyan Properties Ltd 193-4 Gordon Martinsen 197-3 M W McCarthy 198-5 Joanne McClean 201-8 The McLellan Family Trust 203-2 Edward Thomas McMillan 206-4 Brian Mearns 218-6 Robyn Ann Neil 223-2 Marilyn Nicholls 224-10 Bob W Nicholson 251-6 Craig Potter Team Design 252-6 Kirsty Potter Team Design 263-6 Brian Rickard 286-2 Rob Sherrell 311-6 Evelyn Tate 316-4 Ross Douglas Thurlow 317-6 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd 354-15 Yessam Investments Ltd 367-14 Colleen Prendergast 323-3 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 320-8 Mr Alan Tresadern 232-5 Alex Oldham 233-1 Denys Oldham 234-10 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 249-6 Marisa Poolman 253-3 Pride Properties Ltd 289-6 Signature Homes 250-2 R M Post 258-4 L M Reddington 259-4 P J Reddington 260-4 Steven W Reddington 283-2 Alan Shanahan Shanahan Architects Ltd Further Submissions Support 283-2x122 MO and JE Field 339-3 Westlake Properties Ltd 356-6 Jennifer Yorke Submissions requesting that the 1m garage/carport setback behind the front face rule be deleted be accepted. 8-10 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services 22-2 Dave Bert 49-3 N G Chase 72-7 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd 116-8 Nicolette Hansen 127-7 HNZC Chris Hansen 191-3 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd 303-4 Mr Craig Stevens

That the following submission supporting the proposed rule to set back garages and carports at least 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted. 127-8 HNZC Chris Hansen Further Submissions Oppose 127-8x137 Lane Associates Ltd

99

That the following submission requesting that the proposal on the set back of buildings from the street frontage be reconsidered be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; and the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones). 13-1 Auckland Regional Public Health Service

That the following submission requesting the deletion of the proposed changes to setback of building from the street in favour of the current rule but could agree to items ii) and iii) of these changes if they only applied to when garage doors are directly facing the street be accepted. 221-7 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch

That the following submissions opposing the proposed rule that garages & carports not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling be accepted in part to the extent that the rule is modified to relate to garages and carports facing the street , two storey dwellings with basement garaging is excluded and additional assessment criteria is added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 22-1 Dave Bert 303-5 Mr Craig Stevens

That the following submission supporting the addition of requiring garages etc not to exceed 40% of the width of the front face of the dwelling, but delete the rest of the proposed changes – ii) & iii) be accepted in part to the extent that garages & carports are to not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling, unless a limited discretionary resource consent is obtained. 36-6 Vivienne Bull

That the following submissions requesting that garages/carports be permitted in the front yard as a controlled activity be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; and the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones). There is ability to depart from the rules as a limited discretionary resource consent. 347-2 Morris Wong 275-11 Ron Sadler

That the following submissions opposing the new rules for garages & carports in Res 3 zone and/or exempting pre 1930’s homes in Res 3 zone from the proposed rules be accepted. 29-1 Lindsay Brock 37-1 Rob Burden 78-3 Devonport Heritage Inc C/- Cuthbert Ashmore 299-1 Rosalie Stanley

That the following submission requesting that the garage door must be set back at least 5m where it faces the street boundary be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined. 8-11 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Further Submissions Oppose

100

8-11x139 Lane Associates Ltd

That the following submissions requesting that the amendments to Rule 16.6.1.7 – Garages/Carports be deleted and the deleted Res 5 provisions reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; a definition of front face of the dwelling be added; the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones); the rule restricting garages and carports to 50% of the front face of the dwelling be modified and additional assessment criteria be added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 23-21 Beta Properties Ltd 256-18 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd

That the following submission requesting that the proposed changes to garages/carports be reconsidered in respect of architectural techniques and good urban design principals, site constraints, hard surfaces & landscaping be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; a definition of front face of the dwelling be added; the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones); the rule restricting garages and carports to 50% of the front face of the dwelling be modified and additional assessment criteria be added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 26-2 Boulder Planning Limited

That the following submissions requesting that the proposed changes to garages/carports be amended to become a guideline only be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; a definition of front face of the dwelling be added; the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones); the rule restricting garages and carports to 50% of the front face of the dwelling be modified and additional assessment criteria be added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 213-5 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design

That the following submission requesting that a clause be introduced to take into consideration designs where sufficient parking is achieved for example where two car parks are provided by way of attached double garage be declined. 72-8 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd That the following submission requesting that a clause clarifying that the control flexibility in 16.6.1.4 applies to all the rules in 16.6.1.7 be added , including the proposed clauses i) & iii) be accepted in part to the extent that control flexibility applies to all garage/carport rules. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 225-5 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Further Submissions Oppose 225-5x110 HNZC 225-5x117 Pam Dalton 225-5x316 Clime Asset Management Limited Support in Part 225-5x124 MO and JE Field

101

That the following submission requesting that a discretionary activity be provided for alternative garage and carport designs for difficult sites be accepted in part to the extent that limited discretionary activity status is provided for all garage/carport controls.

110-2 Ian Grant That the following submission requesting that the existing control flexibility for garages/carports be retained but the proposed rule be amended by requiring the garage door entry at right angles to street frontage alignment be accepted. 165-3 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates That the following submission requesting that proposed Rule 16.6.1.7ii) be shifted to 16.6.1.4 Front Yards c) under control flexibility and amend the rule so that where garages and carports are erected within the 5m front yard, and the garage door/carport entry faces the street, the garage/carport is to be set back 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted. 225-6 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Further Submissions Oppose 225-6x118 Pam Dalton 225-6x136 Lane Associates Ltd 225-6x317 Clime Asset Management Limited Environmental Oppose in Part 225-6x123 MO and JE Field

That the following submission requesting that a definition of front face of the dwelling be added: “Front face of the dwelling or unit means the building elevation on a front of corner site as viewed from the street. On a corner site, the elevation containing the front door shall be deemed the front face of the dwelling” be accepted. The further submissions in opposition be declined. 225-7 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Further Submissions Oppose 225-7x119 Pam Dalton 225-7x318 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting provision 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports be amended to define front face and include relevant assessment criteria to address the effects on the environment that are anticipated be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined. 90-6 Environmental Services Division, NSCC Further Submissions Oppose 90-6x138 Lane Associates Ltd

That the following submission requesting that Rule 16.6.1.7 i) be amended to read: i) “garages or carports must not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit to which they relate. This rule shall not apply to two storey dwellings or units with a basement or ground floor garage” be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined. 225-9 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Further Submissions Oppose 225-9x121 Pam Dalton 225-9x319 Clime Asset Management Limited

102

That the following submissions requesting deletion or deferment of proposed changes until a full assessment/consideration of the impact on child drive-over events is assessed be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; and the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones). 1-1 Bridget Farmiloe ACC 276-1 Safekids New Zealand C/- Ann Weaver 276-2 Safekids New Zealand C/- Ann Weaver

That the following submission requesting that the proposed changes be amended and replaced with District Plan changes that reduce the risks to children from driveway runovers by for example, ensuring vehicle driveways are not accessible from decks & gardens be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; and the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones). 13-2 Auckland Regional Public Health Service

That the following submissions seeking any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns be accepted in part to the extent that garage doors and carport entries be required to be setback 5m only where they face the street; the proposed rule requiring garages/carports to be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling be withdrawn; a definition of front face of the dwelling be added; the proposed changes to the Res 3 zone be withdrawn (and the issues be addressed in the forthcoming plan change for the Res 3 zones); the rule restricting garages and carports to 50% of the front face of the dwelling be modified and additional assessment criteria be added for garages/carports exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 33-16 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd 34-16 Buildcorp Investment Ltd 35-16 Buildcorp Management Ltd 146-3 JoelFlo Trust 201-9 The McLellan Family 354-16 Yessam Investments Ltd 2.12.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are: • The requirement that a garage or carport be setback 1m behind the front face of the dwelling will be

problematic in many infill situations particularly on properties where the existing dwelling is already setback towards the rear of the site as there is often no option other than locating a garage or carport forward of the dwelling. Even though the garage may be in front of the dwelling in such situations, its impact on the streetscape is minimal due to the distance from the front boundary.

• Requiring garages to be behind the associated dwelling may also compromise private open space, particularly where a properties rear yard faces north. The proposed rule will also result in the increase in the length of driveways and impervious surfaces which is not desirable from a stormwater perspective and child safety.

• The requirement for the garage door to be set back 5m where it directly faces the street boundary enables a vehicle to be parked in front of the garage (i.e a second parking space) without overhanging or obstructing the adjacent footpath.

• The proposed rule requiring that garages or carports not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit to which they relate will mitigate the effects of blank garage doors/carports on the streetscape and enable visual contact between occupiers of a dwelling or unit and the street thus promoting the CPTED principal of passive surveillance of streets. Clarification is however required as to what constitutes the front face of the dwelling.

• Where a two-storey dwelling with a ground floor/basement garaging faces a street, the habitable rooms of the first floor of the dwelling enable visual contact with the street to be maintained and reduces the effect of the garage on the streetscape. This scenario should therefore be exempt from

103

the rule limiting garages and carports to no more than 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit.

• Where a garage door or carport entry is perpendicular to the street it has less visual impact on the streetscape than a blank garage door and therefore should also be exempt from the rule.

• The existing control flexibility relating to garages/carports will apply. Therefore proposals that do not meet the above requirements will be able to be considered as limited discretionary activities.

• A review of the development controls for the Residential 3 zone is currently underway. As this review will focus specifically on Res 3 zone issues, including the impact of garages and carports on the streetscape (as opposed to general infill issues under Plan Change 17), it is appropriate that the proposed changes to garages/carports for the Res 3 zone be withdrawn and the matter be addressed in the Res 3 zone plan change.

2.12.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision

Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

2.13 Topic 13 Residential 3 Zone Lot Sizes/Subdivision 2.13.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 13.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Lot Size The Commissioners agree with the increase in the required net site area in the Res 3A to 450 sqm. Historically lot sizes in the Res 3A zone are around 500 sqm. A min lot size of 400 sqm (Under the Operative District Plan) is effectively 380 sqm as up to 20 sqm of the communal entrance strip may be included as the delineated site area. The ability to reduce the net site area by 20 sqm is to be deleted. Although it is acknowledged that design is more critical than lot size in achieving quality infill development, a larger lot size will assist in ensuring infill development retains the character and amenity values of the Res 3A zone, particularly on rear lots, provision for which is reinstated. The Commissioners note that the delineated area can be reduced in the Res 3 zone by an unrestricted amount where the reduction of delineated area would assist the protection of a building with heritage values, provided that the average delineated area shall comply with the minimum delineated area requirement of the zone in which it is located when averaged across all units in the development. Rear Lots The Commissioners agree that the proposal to make rear lots a non complying activity is inappropriate in the Res 3B and 3C zones where some large undeveloped sites still exist. They are of the view that further subdivision in accordance with the min net site areas for the zone on these sites and also existing rear lots can be undertaken with no more than minor adverse effects and in a manner that is not contrary to what the plan is seeking to achieve (as described in the objectives and policies). In the Res 3A zone, the Commissioners are aware that the historical pattern of subdivision comprised front lots of around 500 sqm in area containing a single dwelling. However, the Commissioners agree with the points raised by submitters that Res 3A zone now contains a ‘mishmash of mixed housing, some of historical significance, others of medium significance and others poorly designed and maintained. A blank restriction on the ability to create rear new lots is therefore considered inappropriate. The preferred alternative approach is to focus on the design of the buildings on lots in the Res 3A zone. They are therefore of the view that this part of the plan change should be withdrawn. Activity Status of Dwellings The Commissioners note that the District Plan contains criteria that enable an assessment of the effect of any new building in the Res 3 zone. However they are of the view that the effectiveness of the criteria is

104

limited given the controlled activity status (controlled activities can not be declined, only conditions imposed and it is difficult to “redesign” a building by condition). They therefore believe that an amended activity status for dwellings in the Res 3A zone to limited discretionary (thus allowing poorly designed proposed to be declined) combined with the changes to the minimum lot size as proposed will enable infill issues to be better addressed. Res 3 Zone Policies The Commissioners note that minor changes were proposed to the polices for the Res 3 zone to reflect the proposed changes involving the increase in lot size and the non provision for rear infill lots. Consequential changes are now required to these policies to reflect the fact that rear lots will be provided for. Heritage Review A number of submissions have requested that Plan Change 17 affecting the Res 3 zone be deferred and await the heritage review that is currently being undertaken. The Commissioners understand that the scope of the review is the objectives, policies, activity status and assessment criteria for the Res 3 zone. It is not proposed to look at lots sizes under that review – this issue is being addressed through Plan Change 17. Remaining Infill Potential The Commissioners are aware that data for the infill potential for the Res 3 zones relied on 2001 aerial photos (being the most recent available at the time in 2005). 2006 aerial photos have since been flow. The 2001 aerials indicated that infill potential across the city was limited to approximately 10 % of properties and in Devonport this figure was less than 4%. In the Devonport Res 3 zone, the likely number of sites that could accommodate further infill development once constraints were taken into account under the Operative District Plan rules was 71 out of the 2094 properties surveyed. Development since 2001 has reduced that figure further. The Commissioners believe that the conclusions from the research remain valid however – that infill potential in the Res 3 zones in Devonport is very limited. They note that the analysis took no account of the redevelopment potential of sites – brownfields development, as it assumes that existing dwellings are retained. If existing dwellings were removed, and this is occurring, the number of additional dwellings possible would be higher and closer to the theoretical maximum of 390 or 18% (in 2001). Therefore while the potential for infill development is small, redevelopment of properties would create further development potential with what are currently single dwelling sites potentially being replaced by two or more dwellings. In their Commissioners view, infill issues are therefore relevant in the Devonport Res 3 zone. Ann Street The Commissioners note that one submission makes the point that Ann Street is a special case given the present lot sizes (300 sqm) and high site coverage (60%) and that the area between the west boundary of the Anne Street properties, Queens Parade, Spring Street and the foot of the hill below Calliope Road should be rezoned Res 6. The Commissioners are of the view that the zoning of this area is outside the scope of the plan change which focuses on the effects of infill housing. In their view, this matter is best addressed once submissions on the Regional Policy Statement have been heard and a decision released. North Shore City Council’s District Plan may then need to be amended to give effect to the changes to the Regional Policy Statement. Regional Growth Strategy Proposed change 6 to the Regional Policy Statement contains a new schedule 1: High Density Centres and corridors & Future Urban Areas. The schedule identifies Devonport as a schedule 1 high density centre and corridor and on the proposed rapid transit system for Auckland. The Commissioners understand that North Shore City Council has lodged a submission opposing the inclusion of Devonport in the schedule primarily because of heritage reasons but also because the Takapuna/Devonport land use and transport integration project has not been completed. 2.13.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submission supporting changes to increase minimum lot size to 450 sqm in Res 3A zone and min frontage requirements be accepted. The further submission in support be accepted.

105

261-8 T Reid-Copus Further Submissions Support 261-8x346 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submissions supporting the proposed change of the min net site area for Res 3A from 400 to 450 sqm and or min frontage be accepted. The further submission in support be accepted. 36-7 Vivienne Bull 78-1 Devonport Heritage Inc C/- Cuthbert Ashmore Further Submissions Support 78-1x362 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 230-9 Simon O'Connor 269-6 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 344-1 Elisabeth Olds Wilson 345-1 Ken Wilson

That the following submission supporting the proposal that no rear sites be permitted be declined. 36-8 Vivienne Bull

That the following submissions opposing changes to the Res 3 zones and seeking the deletion of the proposed changes to min lot size and rear lots in the Res 3 zone and opposing no infill housing be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. The further submission in support and opposition be accepted in part. 23-22 Beta Properties Ltd Further Submissions Oppose 23-22x339 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote, North Shore City 28-7 Kelvyn Bredenkamp 57-3 Clime Asset Management Limited 85-7 Jacqueline Dykstra 93-1 Mervyn and Joyce Fairgray 97-7 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 98-7 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes 120-2 Wayne Harris Further Submissions Oppose 120-2x131 David Dowsett 135-4 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 137-7 Dave Hunt 147-7 Alex Johnston 166-7 Sandra Lane 168-7 Logan Latham 169-7 Robert Lavender 170-7 Sheila Lavender 185-1 Simon and Hilary Mackenzie 191-4 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd 218-7 Robyn Ann Neil 224-11 Bob W Nicholson 251-7 Craig Potter Team Design 252-7 Kirsty Potter Team Design 256-19 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd 311-7 Evelyn Tate 320-9 Mr Alan Tresadern 323-4 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 356-7 Jennifer Yorke

That the following submission seeking the retention of the ability for infill housing within the Res 3A zone by

106

alternative means be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined. 68-5 Trevor Cullen Further Submissions Oppose 68-5x129 David Dowsett

That the following submissions opposing changes to lot sizes, and seeking the retention of a min net site area of 400sqm be declined. The further submissions in opposition be accepted. 14-17 Axis Consultants 39-8 Fiona Butler 57-4 Clime Asset Management Limited 115-7 Jim Hammond Further Submissions Oppose 115-7x130 David Dowsett 122-7 Miranda Hawker Further Submissions Oppose 122-7x132 David Dowsett 127-4 HNZC Chris Hansen 134-7 John Hoy 135-5 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 138-7 Nicole Hunt 159-7 Kerry King 160-7 Wendy King 165-4 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates 191-1 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd 232-6 Alex Oldham 234-11 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 249-7 Marisa Poolman 289-7 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 302-1 Roger Steele That the following submissions opposing no rear lots, and seeking the retention of exiting rules, and associated policies be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. The further submission in opposition and support be accepted in part. 20-6 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes 26-1 Boulder Planning Limited Further Submissions Oppose 26-1x128 David Dowsett 57-5 Clime Asset Management Limited 129-7 D W Hookway 135-8 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume 180-1 David Graham Loughlin 181-1 Dr Susan L Loughlin 193-5 Gordon Martinsen 314-2 Andrew Thomson Further Submissions Oppose 314-2x135 T R Bracey Support 314-2x255 Mark Helsby

That the following submission seeking the restriction on new rear lots to only apply to the Res 3A zone be accepted in part to the extent that that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is deleted. 346-2 Dave Winter That the following submissions disagreeing with proposed change to Res 3A zone lot sizes and requesting that there should be a minimum subdivision criteria for rear lots of say 500 sqm be accepted in part to the

107

extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. The further submissions in opposition be accepted in part. 221-4 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland Branch Further Submissions Oppose 221-4x349 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 275-12 Ron Sadler Further Submissions Oppose 275-12x134 David Dowsett 275-12x308 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submissions requesting that a density standard and min lot size of 600 sqm net is provided for rear sites within the Res 3 zone be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. The further submissions in support and opposition be accepted in part. 8-12 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Further Submissions Oppose 8-12x127 David Dowsett 8-12x305 Clime Asset Management Limited 8-12x361 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Support 8-12x246 P O'Hagan

That the following submission seeking the deletion of the no rear lot provision for Res 3 zone or make it applicable to properties with an area less than 900 sqm or 1000 sqm be accepted. The further submissions in opposition be declined and in support be accepted. 59-1 David Collett Further Submissions Oppose 59-1x306 Clime Asset Management Limited Support 59-1x244 Claire Baker 59-1x245 Stephen Collett 59-1x260 J A Wilson

That the following submission requesting the amendment of the Proposed Plan Change 17 to allow subdivision in Residential 3 zone to create rear lots on lots 1000 sqm or greater be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 307-1 Owen Sturgess Further Submissions Oppose 307-1x309 Clime Asset Management Limited

That the following submission requesting that the Plan change be adjusted to exclude very large undeveloped sections e.g. those over 1200 sqm in the Res 3 zone from the proposed changes be accepted. 128-1 Dinah Holman

That the following submission requesting that proposed Rule 9.4.5.3b) be amended to enable the further subdivision of existing rear lots and larger properties – for example in excess of 1200 sqm, in accordance with the min net site area for the zone. Make consequential amendments to Rule 16.5.1 – Table 16.2 to

108

provide for the above changes be accepted. The further submissions in opposition be declined and in support be accepted. 225-8 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Further Submissions Oppose 225-8x120 Pam Dalton 225-8x133 David Dowsett 225-8x307 Clime Asset Management Limited Support 225-8x3 Hazel and Campbell Newman 225-8x254 Mark Helsby

That the following submissions seeking the deletion of the two exception clauses proposed in 9.4.5.3 be declined. 36-9 Vivienne Bull

That the following submissions opposing changes to the policy provisions for Res 3 zone be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. 70-2 Barbara Cuthbert 78-4 Devonport Heritage Inc 302-2 Roger Steele

That the following submissions requesting the retention of the ability for infill housing within the Res 3A zone by alternative means be accepted. The further submission in opposition be declined.

68-5 Trevor Cullen Further Submissions Oppose 68-5x129 David Dowsett That the following submission seeking the deletion of the proposed amendment to 16.4.3 Policy 2(c) which reads “and do not provide for infill development” be accepted. 20-2 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes

That the following submission seeking the deletion of the proposed amendments to 16.4.3 Policy 2(d), which refers to avoiding adverse effects on adjacent properties and maintaining the visual record of earlier settlements be declined. 20-3 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes

That the following submission seeking the deletion of the proposed amendments to 16.4.3 Policy 5, which add a reference to retention of mature exotic trees, and private open spaces that enhance the historical or architectural character of the heritage area be declined. 20-4 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes Further Submissions Oppose 20-4x332 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote, North Shore City

That the following submission seeking any consequential amendments to the Explanation and Reasons, and other sections of the plan to which the plan change relates, that are required to give effect to the submission be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. 20-9 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes

109

That the following submission seeking the retention of the operative plan provisions in Table 16.2 for residential units not exceeding 2 per site in the Res 3 zones be declined. The further submission in opposition be declined.

20-5 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes Further Submissions Oppose 20-5x333 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society 127-9 HNZC Chris Hansen 231-1 P O'Hagan MSC Consulting Group C/- Alistair White

That the following submissions seeking that the change of activity status of second or more residential units on sites in Res 3 to non-complying should only apply in the Res 3A zone be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary. 346-1 Dave Winter

That the following submission requesting Rule 16.5.1. – Activity Status Res 3 zone & 16.6.2.3 – Density Res 3 zone, remain unchanged be declined. 302-3 Roger Steele

That the following submissions supporting the introduction of non complying activity for second dwelling and associated objectives be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary. 269-7 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submissions seeking that a single dwelling per site in Res 3 zone – should be considered on a case by case basis taking into account land size, trees etc be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary. 116-9 Nicolette Hansen

That the following submission requesting the deletion of the proposed changes to limit the intensity of development and to not provide for infill in Res 3 zone be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the res 3 zone is deleted; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. 214-1 Sean Murray

That the following submissions requesting the deferment of any hearing and decision on the change in so far as it affects the Res 3 zone to allow the heritage character review to be completed with urgency and to ensure a coherent approach is taken to amending the policy framework and related rules of the built heritage zone be declined. The further submission in support be declined. 70-4 Barbara Cuthbert 78-2 Devonport Heritage Inc Further Submissions Support 70-4x111 HNZC 78-2x112 HNZC 205-1 Margot McRae

That the following submissions stating that heritage areas need special consideration to maintain unique overall appearance and the special ambience and agree with old houses not having modern units or other houses types on large sections be accepted. The further submission in support be accepted.

110

83-12 Mr R Duffin 92-4 Janis Fairburn Further Submissions Support 92-4x356 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

That the following submission stating that there needs to be scope for the replacement of individual dwellings at higher density in Res 3 & 4 zones, provided development is in keeping with the character of an area be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is withdrawn; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. 49-2 N G Chase

That the following submissions stating that Anne Street is a special case, the present section size (300 sqm) and site coverage (60%) are well outside the Res 3 zone criteria – the land between the west boundary of the Anne Street properties, Queens Parade, Spring Street and the foot of the hill below Calliope should be rezoned Res 6 be declined. 233-2 Denys Oldham 2.13.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are: • The increase in the min lot size in the Res 3A zone to 450 sqm will provide additional space to

mitigate the effects of infill housing. This combined with a change in activity status for dwellings will enable Council to address issues associated with infill housing in the Res 3A zone.

• The proposal to make rear lots a non complying activity in all Res 3 sub zones is inappropriate in the Res 3B and 3C zones where some large undeveloped sites still exist. Further subdivision in accordance with the min net site areas for the zone on these sites and also existing rear lots can be undertaken with no more than minor adverse effects and in a manner that is not contrary to what the District Plan is seeking to achieve.

• In the Res 3A zone, the traditional pattern of subdivision has been front lots of around 500 sqm in area containing a single dwelling. However, as a result of past development the Res 3A zone now contains a ‘mishmash of mixed housing, some of historical significance, others of medium significance and others poorly designed and maintained. A blank restriction on the ability to create rear new lots is therefore inappropriate. A more appropriate approach to achieving higher quality infill housing is to focus on the design of the dwellings/buildings in the Res 3A zone. The changes proposed under Plan Change 17 together with those in the forthcoming Plan Change for the Res 3 zone will assist in enabling better design outcomes to be achieved.

• An amended activity status for 1-4 dwellings in the Res 3A zone to limited discretionary will enable poorly designed proposed to be declined. This combined with the changes to the minimum lot size as proposed will assist in improving the quality of infill housing.

• The exception clause enables a minimum net site area of 400 sqm per residential unit to apply to applications for resource and building consent that were lodged prior to the plan change being publicly notified or any existing residential unit lawfully established prior to the plan change.

• The zoning of the Anne Street area is outside the scope of the plan change which focuses on the effects of infill housing. The appropriateness of the zoning of this area matter is best addressed once submissions on the Regional Policy Statement have been heard and a decision released. North Shore City Council’s District Plan may then need to be amended to give effect to the changes to the Regional Policy Statement.

2. 13.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

111

2.14 Topic 14 Site Specific 14.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 14.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Minimum lot Sizes The Commissioners understand that the majority of the site specific submissions relate to the increase in the minimum lot size in the Res 4A zone and the fact that this will frustrate/prevent proposed subdivision and development. The same situation also applies to some properties in the Res 3 zone. This decision notice amends Plan Change 17 to take account of some of the points raised by submitters, including changes to the Res 3A, 4A zone lots sizes/activity status and minor residential units. The Commissioners note that these changes as contained in this decision notice will provide some of the submitters with the relief sought – that proposed developments can proceed. That is, subdivision down to 400sqm min net site area is provided for as a controlled activity in the Res 4A zone. As a result of this decision, on properties that are being totally redeveloped, the dwelling units are a controlled activity while on properties that contain existing dwellings, the activity status of any infill dwelling will be a limited discretionary activity. Minor Residential Units Likewise for minor residential units, under this decision notice, they will continue to be provided for as a permitted activity on larger properties of 600 sqm or greater (except in the Res 2 & 3 zones where they will be discretionary) and as a discretionary activity on properties less than 600 sqm in area. The Commissioners note that this will essentially provide submitters with the relief sought, although in the case of minor residential units on lots less than 600 sqm in area a resource consent will be required. Weighting of Proposed Plan Changes The Commissioners are aware that where resource consents were lodged just prior to or after Proposed Plan Change 17 was publicly notified, case law determines the weight afforded to such changes. In summary, when the plan change is first notified, much greater weight is afforded the provisions of the Operative Plan. The weighting changes as the plan change progresses through the submission process particularly after the hearing and release of the decision on submissions. 45 Birkdale Road The Commissioners are aware that one submitter has requested the rezoning of 45 Birkdale Road be changed to Res 4B. The property is currently zoned Res 2A and has an area of 1194 sqm. The adjacent properties fronting Birkdale Road are zoned Res 4B, those towards the east are generally zoned Res 2A and comprise regenerating native bush in the stream valley. The subject property contains one principal dwelling and a minor residential unit. It contains no native vegetation or regenerating bush. If the zoning of the property was changed the result would be to enable the subdivision of two 450 sqm lots. The objectives for the Res 2A zone is “to protect the special character of large areas of native bush, including associated landforms and natural watercourses, in recognition of their contribution to the amenity and environmental quality of the city”. The relevant policies include: 2. By applying a Residential 2A zone to other areas of native bush, and to areas adjacent to the Chelsea Sugar refinery that have special natural and built heritage values including important values arising from the coastal location. 6. By controlling the siting of buildings in order to protect natural values and the character of the area. 10. By requiring, at the time of subdivision, the use of mechanisms such as covenants to ensure the long term management and protection of the bush. 11. By ensuring the retention of areas of native bush and the amenity, landscape and ecological values that these areas contribute to the sub-zone.

112

The associated Explanation and Reasons for the Res 2 zones state: “The Residential 2A and 2A1 zones apply to urban areas with important natural values. They apply to land which is predominantly covered with regenerating native bush, contains native forest remnants or where streams exist in a natural state with riparian vegetation still largely intact. These areas of native bush are a significant landscape feature which provide an important visual amenity for the city as a whole as well as an attractive living environment for residents of these areas. Together with streams, these areas function as ecological corridors providing for the movement of native fauna between habitats”. As the subject property does not contain any native bush and does not have the characteristic of a Res 2A property, the Commissioners are of the view that a Res 4B zoning is more appropriate. 2.14.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following submissions requesting that subdivision and development be provided for under the Operative District Plan rules on the properties identified in the submission be accepted in part to the extent that changes to the Operative District Plan controls on infill housing are modified so that:

• A min net site area of 450 sqm be provided for infill housing as a permitted activity in the Res 4A and 4B zones;

• Infill housing at a density of 1/400 sqm in Res 4A and 1/400 sqm in Res 4B (3-5 units) be a controlled activity where the parent lot/site is redeveloped and the constraints imposed by existing dwellings are removed;

• Infill housing be a limited discretionary activity on sites of 400 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B (3-5 units) where the parent lot contains an exiting dwelling or dwellings.

These changes will provide those submitters with the ability to achieve a min net site area of 400 sqm to further develop their properties although matters such the activity status and the ability to include 20 sqm of land from the communal entrance strip have changed to enable better design outcomes to be achieved. On sites where a net site area of 400 sqm can not be achieved, further subdivision and development will be a non complying activity. The further submissions in support be accepted in part to the extent that where a min net site area of 400 sqm can be achieved in the Res 4A zone, further development will be possible.

Make an exception for the property at 4 Beatrice Ave, Glenfield. 7-2 Vaughan Anderson Cheryl Place, Glenfield. 32-1 Harold Buckton 69 Raleigh Road, Northcote 50-2 Chat Investments Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 27 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill 51-2 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 35 Lingfield Street, Glenfield 51-3 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 14 Bardia Street, Takapuna 51-4 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 33 Sunnynook Road. 52-1 Thomas Cheng 24 Holland Road, Northcote. 53-1 Perry Chiang and Angela Chiang 6 Fowler Street, Northcote 80-2 S H Dodhy 1/105 Ocean View Road, Northcote 80-3 S H Dodhy 105 Ocean View Road, Northcote 80-4 S H Dodhy 35 Totaravale Drive, Sunnynook 80-5 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote 80-6 S H Dodhy 88 Bayswater Drive

113

79-2 M J Dobbyn 54 Archers Road, Glenfield 75 Greenslade Crescent, Northcote 215-2 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 170 Lake Road, Northcote 215-3 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 69 Greenslade Crescent, Northcote 215-4 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 28 Wicklow Road, Devonport 216-2 Kuganasen Naidoo 2 Waverley Ave, Glenfield 216-3 Kuganasen Naidoo 27 Stanley Point Road. 222-4 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell Any other consequential amendments in support of the submission. 222-5 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell

5 Raeben Ave. 236-1 Mr Park 264 Forrest Hill Road 243-1 Penticton Ltd C/- Cameron Russell Further Submissions Support 243-1x256 Mrs D Russell 243-1x257 Mr Wilson Russell 243-1x258 Mr L Russell 243-1x259 Mr S Russell 67 Gladstone Road 294-2 Gordon and Joy Smith 65 Francis Street, Takapuna. 326-1 Anthony Edwin Valentine 88 Forrest Hill Road. 330-1 Neil and Jenni Waddell Like certain existing properties, especially those such as ourselves, which have already shown an intension to subdivide, to be granted an indefinite exemption for the new 450 sqm ruling, subject to an application for exemption being made within six months. 330-2 Neil and Jenni Waddell 4 Corunna Road, Milford 332-5 Steve Walker That the following submission requesting that minor residential units be permitted on the following properties be accepted in part to the extent that provision is made for minor residential units in all zones as either permitted or discretionary activities. 8 Sealy Road, Torbay. 69-2 Gary and Karina Curran 54 Archers Road, Glenfield 158-1 Kilimanjaro Rentals No 1 Ltd

8 Hillcrest Ave, Northcote 64-3 Mr C and Mrs M Couch

That the following submissions requesting that proposed subdivision of Res 3 zoned sites be permitted be accepted in part to the extent that the activity status of 1-4 dwellings per site is amended to limited discretionary; that the rule preventing rear lots in the Res 3 zone is deleted; and that consequential amendments to the Res 3 zone policies be undertaken to reflect these changes. Resource consent application to subdivide to be considered under the conditions of the operative District Plan to form a rear section in a Res 3A zone and to retain a min lot size of 400 sqm.

114

273-1 Mrs Judith Ryan 11 Rodney Road, Northcote 20-7 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes Such further or other relief as may give effect to the submission. 20-8 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes

That the following submission seeking the rezoning of 45 Birkdale Road (being Pt Allot 128, Parish of Takapuna) to Res 4B be accepted.

202-6 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 2.14.4 Reasons for the Decision The reasons for this decision are: • The reasons for the decisions on minor residential units, the Res 4A and 4B zones, Res 3 zones

and are contained under the relevant topic headings; • The property at 45 Birkdale Road contains no native vegetation or regenerating bush. The objective

for the Res 2A zone is “to protect the special character of large areas of native bush, including associated landforms and natural watercourses, in recognition of their contribution to the amenity and environmental quality of the city”. As the subject property does not contain any native bush and does not have the characteristics of a Res 2A property, a Res 4B zoning is more appropriate. This zoning is consistent with other properties in the vicinity.

2. 14.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

2.15 Topic 15 Procedural Matters 2.15.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 2.15.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Land value The Commissioners note that under New Zealand planning law there is no compensation payable for any loss of development rights resulting from a change to a District Plan. Likewise there is no contribution required if land is “up zoned” to allow for greater development rights (other than development contributions for the upgrading of infrastructural services). As rates are based on land values, rates would only reduce if there were a reduction in land value. It is noted that under this decision notice there will be some loss of development potential resulting from the increase in lot size from 350 to 400 sqm in the Res 4A zone and 400 to 450 sqm in the Res 3A zone. Consultation The Commissioners are aware that consultation on the proposed change has been summarised in the background report to the plan change. In addition, the submission process itself is part of the consultation process. As described in this decision notice a number of changes are recommend based on the comments and suggestions made by submitters. Delaying the Effect of the Proposed Changes In terms of delaying the effect of the plan change, the Commissioners point out that this is a matter, which is addressed by the provisions of the Resource Management Act and case law. Under Section 20 of the

115

Resource Management Act, a local authority may before publicly notifying a proposed plan, resolve that any rule in the plan does not have effect until the plan becomes operative. Public notification of the plan must include this resolution. The Commissioners point out that this approach did not apply to Plan Change 17 and the proposed Plan Change therefore had some effect from the date of public notification. The effect early on in the plan change process is primarily on the activity status, the need for resource consents and notification issues. When making a decision on a resource consent early on in the process, greater weight still lies with the operative District Plan. The Commissioners are of the view that delaying the effect of any plan change for 6 months to 3 years as sought by some of the submitters may defeat the purpose of the plan change with developments within that period being undertaken in a manner similar to that which has given rise to the plan change. A more appropriate approach is for the plan change to have some effect – although minimal in the early stages and for greater weight to be afforded to the plan change as it advances through the plan change process. Savings clauses One submission has questioned whether the proposed changes have any effect on a lawfully established development. The Commissioners understand that any lawfully established activity or development has existing use rights under Section 10 of the Resource Management Act. Review of the District Plan The Commissioners note the request by some of the submitters to await the review of the North Shore City Plan. This is not legally required until 2012 (10 years after the plan was made operative in 2002) although work on reviewing the plan would commence around 2008/09. In the interim, the Commissioners understand that Council is proposing a rolling review of some of the provisions e.g. Plan Change 17, the rules for the heritage areas, and the rural zone rules to address issues that have arisen. Therefore, in the Commissioners view, awaiting the full review of the District Plan is inappropriate as it will mean that important issues are not addressed for another 5-6 years. 2.15.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submission seeking consultation with residents, developers & other interested groups by way of open forum without implementing such changes be declined. 44-1 Murray Calder That the following submissions requesting compensation/rates reduction for the loss of development rights be declined. 65-1 Marcus Arnold Coverdale 209-3 Jonathan Michell 235-2 Tony and Delwyn Palmer

That the following submissions requesting the proposed change be deferred, delayed or postponed be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted and in support be declined. 82-1 Richard Cameron Drew Further Submissions Oppose 82-1x251 Meng Wang 84-2 Dundalk Investments Ltd C/- Antony Kabalin 118-2 Mark Harper Further Submissions Support 118-2x368 Mark Harper 140-1 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 140-3 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 141-1 Heng Ing 141-3 Heng Ing 142-1 Mrs Muny Ing 142-3 Mrs Muny Ing 154-2 Antony Kabalin 189-3 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd

116

209-2 Jonathan Michell 254-2 Karen Radley 254-3 Karen Radley 255-2 M A Radley 348-2 Clive Richard Wood That the following submissions requesting that the rule changes for Res 4A & 4B be enforced on new owners after properties change hands so that new buyers are aware be declined. 140-4 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 141-4 Heng Ing 142-4 Mrs Muny Ing That the following submission requesting that Plan Change 17 be applied to new applications for land use consents and not to existing dwellings, whether or not on cross lease or freehold titles be accepted in part to the extent that existing use rights apply to any existing lawfully established developments. 291-1 Mr Robert Sintes That the following submission requesting that the plan change be withdrawn until such time as the review of the District Plan is undertaken & then its effects will be able to be judged in context be declined. 129-2 D W Hookway

That the following submission requesting that the savings clause be upheld where any proposed changes have no effect on a lawfully established development be accepted. 132-1 Mr Murray Hoverd 2.15.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • Under New Zealand planning law there is no compensation payable for any loss of development

rights resulting from a change to a District Plan, although any changes are appealable to the Environment Court.

• Delaying the effect of any plan change for 6 months – 3 years may defeat the purpose of the plan change with developments within that period being undertaken in a manner similar to that which has given rise to the plan change.

• A more appropriate approach is for the plan change to have some effect – although minimal in the early stages and for greater weight to be afforded to the plan change as it advances through the plan change process.

• Any lawfully established activity or development has existing use rights under section 10 of the Resource Management Act.

• Awaiting the full review of the North Shore City Plan will mean that infill issues will not be addressed for another 5-6 years with the review of the North Shore City Plan is not legally required until 2012 (10 years after the plan was made operative in 2002

2.15.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1. 2.16 Topic 16 Other Matters 2.16.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4.

117

16.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions Assessment criteria The Commissioners note that the proposed changes to 16.7.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities include adding reference to the criteria in 16.7.3.6(a). The introductory phrase for those assessment criteria includes the wording “the extent to which”. This is opposed by the submitter. The Commissioners are aware that the Environment Court has also commented (in the Okura Court case) that the phrase “the extent to which” does not provide any guidance for assessing resource consents. The Commissioners therefore agree that these words be deleted from the assessment criteria in 16.7.3.6 and be replaced by wording that provides greater guidance on the outcomes sought. Yards The Commissioners note that a submitter seeks the deletion of the 3m rear yard to enable better use of rear sites. It is noted that rear sites are required to have a 3m yard for all boundaries. There is provision for a reduction in the yard by way of a limited discretionary resource consent with the length of that part of the building infringing the yard to be no greater than 10m. The Commissioners note that the Explanation and Reasons associated with the rear yard states that “a 3 metre rear yard has been imposed in recognition of the greater degree of privacy expected in rear yards within the established residential areas. The standard maintains continuity with existing development patterns and community expectations which have arisen in response to the fact that a 3m metre yard has been in force in much of the city for many years”. Given the historical pattern of development and the ability to reduce the yard as a limited discretionary activity, the Commissioners are of the view that no change need occur. This matter could however be the subject of review when the District Plan is next reviewed. Height in relation to boundary The Commissioners note that one submission raises the point that North Shore City’s height in relation to boundary control of 2.5m plus the shortest horizontal distance between that part of a building and any site boundary needs to better reflect site orientation as is the case in some other District Plans. The height in relation to boundary control for the Res 3 zone does differ in recognition of the distinctive pattern of subdivision and development in which the width of the sites, the siting of the houses and the height and bulk of the older houses results in a greater potential for effects on sunlight, daylight, building dominance and privacy. The Commissioners are of the view that if a more responsive height in relation to boundary control was required, this would need to be investigated further and be the subject of either a subsequent plan change or incorporated in the review of the District Plan commencing in 2008/09. In their view the “standard” 2.5 m plus distance is appropriate. It has been the dominant control in the city for several decades and there is provision as a limited discretionary application to exceed the control in appropriate circumstances. Noise The Commissioners are of the view that noise from vehicles manoeuvring in tight areas is best addressed by ensuring there is adequate onsite manoeuvring. It is noted that noise from motor vehicles is not covered by the District Plan controls. The requirement for onsite manoeuvring is addressed in Section 12 of the District Plan. Under Rule 12.4.2.5 in all residential zones, manoeuvring areas for parking spaces are required to be provided so that no reverse manoeuvring on a road or footpath is required. There are exceptions where this rule does not apply. Parking The Commissioners note that the District Plan requires one parking space for each residential unit with a gross floor area of 50 sqm or less and two spaces for each residential unit with a gross floor area in excess of 50 sqm. Visitor parking at a rate of 0.5 spaces for each unit over 50 sqm gross floor area. In the Commissioners view, the requirement for onsite visitor parking is a careful balancing exercise. If too much parking is required there will be adverse effects on the character and amenity of areas and stormwater runoff and if too little is required, this may result in the reduction in availability of on street parking and traffic congestion.

118

In any case, any increase in visitor parking would need to be the subject of a separate study which is outside the scope of this plan change. The Commissioners understand that a parking review of the city’s town centres is currently underway and that this may have implications for the District Plan. Comprehensive Housing The Commissioners are advised that the comprehensive development controls in rule 16.7.3.11 were deleted under Plan Change 1. Terrace Housing The Commissioners note that one submitter seeks the removal of terrace housing from the Res 4 zones except within 100m from a major transport route. It is understood that terrace housing for up to 2 units in the Res 4B and 3 residential units in Res 4A in accordance with the density rule is a controlled activity. More than 3 units in Res 4A and more than 2 units in Res 4B are discretionary activities. The development must comply with the density rules. The Commissioners therefore point out that the intensity of development permitted is the same as if the property was developed with detached dwellings or residential units. The only difference being the fact that the units are joined with a common wall. With the proposed changes to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement changing the emphasis from infill development to development in and around centres and along transit corridors, the Commissioners are of the view that in time, more intensive development may be provided for in the North Shore City District Plan within walking distance (400 – 500m ) of transit corridors. This would however need to be the subject of a separate study and subsequent plan change and need to take into account the suitability of such areas for more intensive development. Plan Change Name The Commissioners note the request by a submitter for the name of the plan change to be changed to “Improving Residential Amenity” and that the provisions be refocused along these lines. The title of the plan change – ‘Addressing the effects of infill Housing on the Character of Residential Areas’ is focused on improving residential amenity. In their view, the name of the plan change does not have any material effect on its contents but merely summaries the focus of the components of the change. In any case the plan change has been notified under its present title. Suitable Parks & Reserves The Commissioners point out that North Shore City has prepared an Open Space Strategy which provides policy guidance on the type and extent of parks and reserves required. Associated with this document is a parks acquisition plan. In existing urban areas the opportunities to acquire parkland are less than in greenfield areas, but nevertheless there is opportunity for esplanade reserves and small “pocket parks” to be acquired to supplement existing parks and reserves. Larger Sites in Areas of Bush & Unique Environments In response to a submitter that has requested lot sizes be greater in areas of bush, the Commissioners note that the North Shore City Plan already identifies areas of the city which are characterised by regenerating native bush, larger sites sizes, or a coastal setting. Such areas generally have a Res 2 zoning which seeks to protect the special character through appropriate objectives and polices, larger min lot sizes and development controls which vary (e.g. site coverage) from the main residential areas of the city. Examining Ways to Control Issues The plan change process, including the preparation of the Section 32 Report, submission and further submission process enables alternative solutions to the problems identified to be considered and debated. As a result of this process, the Commissioners are of the view that changes to the District Plan are required to address infill issues. These will need to be supplemented with other methods such as design guidelines for infill housing and monitoring and enforcement. 2.16.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions

That the following submission requesting the first additional assessment criterion proposed in Section 16.7.2 “Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities” be amended by removing the phrase “the extent to which” and replacing it with alternative wording that more accurately conveys what criterion NSCC requires applicants to meet or aspire to be accepted.

119

12-2 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council

That the following submission requesting the removal of the 3m rear yard to allow better use of rear sites be declined. The further submission in support be declined. 14-9 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling Further Submissions Support 14-9x188 Beta Properties Ltd PO Box 301 278, Albany, North Shore City

That the following submission requesting that the height in relation to boundary rule be modified to be 2.5m + various angles as in other local cities be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted. 14-10 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling Further Submissions Oppose 14-10x189 Beta Properties Ltd PO Box 301 278, Albany, North Shore City

That the following submission stating that the proposed change does not equate with the Regional Growth Strategy be declined. 79-4 M J Dobbyn

That the following submission stating that an additional issue associated with infill housing is noise pollution from vehicles force to manoeuvre in restricted access be accepted in part to the extent that it is acknowledged that this is an issue associated with infill housing and the changes to min site areas and activity status will partly assist in addressing this issue. 92-2 Janis Fairburn That the following submission stating that an additional issue associated with infill housing is the lack of visitor parking be accepted in part to the extent that it is acknowledged that this is an issue associated with infill housing and the changes to min site areas and activity status will assist in addressing this issue. The further submission in opposition be accepted in part. 92-3 Janis Fairburn Further Submissions Oppose 92-3x198 Beta Properties Ltd PO Box 301 278, Albany, North Shore City

That the following submission requesting improvements to control flexibility overall as discretionary activities be declined.

112-3 Guardian Developments C/- Barry Kaye Assoc Ltd

That the following submission requesting that there are suitable parks & reserves, encourage landscaping & tree planting be declined as this issue is outside the scope of this plan change 116-7 Nicolette Hansen

That the following submission requesting that zero lot boundaries be allowed for side & rear boundaries be accepted in part to the extent that side and rear yards can be reduced to 0m as a limited discretionary activity. 129-5 D W Hookway

120

That the following submission agreeing with larger sites in areas of bush & unique environments be accepted in part to the extent that the District Plan already requires larger lot size in the Res 2 zones – areas characterised by regenerating native bush. 195-2 Grant Massey

That the following submission requesting that the Comprehensive Housing Development provisions in Section 16.7.3.11 be changed so that the density requirements are clarified so that each unit in such development is provided with a min area of land as specified in the table be declined as this provision has previously been deleted from the District Plan. The further submission in opposition be accepted.

265(c)-21 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma Further Submissions Oppose 265(c)-21x175 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission requesting the plan be changed by removing the terrace housing provisions from the Res 4 zones except where they are within 100m from a major transport route be declined. The further submission in opposition be accepted. 265(c)-22 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma Further Submissions Oppose 265(c)-22x176 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF

That the following submission requesting that the Plan Change be renamed “Improving Residential Amenity” & refocus the provisions be declined. 323-1 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill

That the following submission requesting that ways to control infill issues be examined with better/clearer rules, which would attain the solutions the public are seeking be accepted in part to the extent that the plan changed has been modified as a result of the submissions process to take into account the different suggestions put forward by submitters for better addressing infill issues and that other methods such as design guidelines and monitoring and enforcement will be required to address infill housing issues. 356-8 Jennifer Yorke 2.16.4 Reasons for the Decisions The reasons for this decision are: • The phrase “the extent to which” in 16.7.2 Assessment criteria does not provide any guidance for

assessing resource consents. These words should be deleted from the assessment criteria in be replaced by alternative wording that assists in the assessment of resource consents.

• There is provision for a reduction in the yard by way of a limited discretionary resource consent with the length of that part of the building infringing the yard to be no greater than 10m. Given the historical pattern of development and the ability to reduce the yard as a limited discretionary activity, it is considered that no change is necessary.

• The standard 2.5 m plus distance height in relation to boundary control has been the dominant control in the city for several decades. There is provision as a limited discretionary application to relax the control. If a more responsive height in relation to boundary control were considered necessary, this would need to be investigated further and be the subject of either a subsequent plan change or incorporated in the review of the District Plan commencing in 2008/09.

• Noise from vehicles manoeuvring in tight areas is best addressed by ensuring there is adequate onsite manoeuvring as noise from motor vehicles is not covered by the District Plan noise controls.

121

• Any increase in visitor parking would need to be the subject of a separate study which is outside the scope of this plan change.

• The comprehensive development controls in rule 16.7.3.11 were deleted under Plan Change 1. • The intensity of development permitted for terrace housing is the same as if a property was

developed with detached dwellings or residential units. The only difference being the fact that the units are joined with a common wall. From a density perspective there is no valid reason to delete provision for terrace housing from the plan.

• The name of the plan change does not have any material effect on the plan change but summarises the focus of the change. In any case, the plan change has been notified under its present title.

2.16.5 Changes to the Plan Change Text Arising from the Decision

Changes to the text are contained in Appendix 1.

2.17 Topic 17 Further Submissions Not Specifying Submissions Supported Or Opposed 2.17.1 Additional Evidence Presented at the Hearing A summary of the additional evidence, both written and verbal, presented at the hearing is contained in section 1.4. 17.2 Commissioners Deliberations and Conclusions The Commissioners note that the following further submissions did not state which original submission they supported or opposed but raised further submission points. The issues raised in these further submissions are discussed elsewhere in this report under the relevant topic headings. 17.3 Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions That the following further submissions opposing Plan Change 17 in total be accepted in part to the extent that substantial changes are to be made to the plan change to take into account points raised in the submissions process. 361-1 Meng Wang 362-1 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 363-1 Chun Chi Gaow 365-1 S C Ching That the following further submission opposing changes to increase the lot size for subdivision be accepted in part to the extent that changes have been made to the plan change to take into account points raised in the submissions process. 359-1 Steve Li That the following further submissions opposing changes to minimum lot size in Res 4A and 4B be accepted in part to the extent that changes have been made to the plan change to take into account points raised in the submissions process. 360-1 Sharon Amphlett

That the following further submissions opposing all changes to Res 4A and 4B zones be accepted in part to the extent that changes have been made to the plan change to take into account points raised in the submissions process. 364-1 Ying Huang 366-1 William Chiang

123

Appendix 1 Amendments to Plan Change 17 Resulting from Decisions on Submissions Note:

1. Strikethrough and underlining indicate the result of this decision notice on the original text of the notified plan change and any resulting consequential changes.

2. The original plan change section headings and instructions are left intact for ease of comparison.

Plan Change 17 – Addressing the Effects of Infill Housing on the Character of Residential Areas 1. Minor Residential Units 16.3.5 Housing Choice Policies 2. By providing opportunities in the main residential area for housing developments at a variety of densities, including smaller dwellings on smaller sized sites, which are compatible with the maintenance of local environmental values. 3. By providing opportunities for the establishment of a variety of housing forms throughout the residential zones, including houses, units, and apartments and minor residential units, by the inclusion of such activities as Permitted, Controlled and Discretionary activities. 4. By enabling minor residential units to be established as a Permitted activity in the Residential 1, 4-7 and Structure Plan zones on sites larger than 600sqm and as a discretionary activity on smaller sites and in the Residential 2 and 3 zones in order to facilitate the provision of accommodation for extended families and to increase the availability of small units, notwithstanding that such development has greater impact on residential amenities than the establishment of a single dwelling per site. 4. By allowing residential units to have a second kitchen and/or dishwashing facility to enable dependant relatives to be accommodated. These facilities will be required to be removed once the dependant relative no longer resides there. Methods • Policies 1-9 will be implemented by rules. Explanation and Reasons Specific groups within the community also have specialised housing needs, in particular those on low incomes, the elderly, the intellectually and physically challenged, and those in need of emergency or refuge accommodation. The policies of the Plan are intended to ensure that there is an ability to meet these needs within the residential area at an intensity and scale which is comparable to a residential unit. However, in relation to minor residential units, in recognition of the social benefit of providing accommodation for extended families, and to increase the availability of small units, this use is included as a Permitted, or Controlled or Discretionary activity in all zones. The activity imposes impacts on the character and amenity of residential areas in terms of the loss of open space, loss of trees and vegetation, increase in traffic and effects on the privacy of neighbouring properties, but these impacts are slight and are offset by the benefit to the wider community of increasing the availability of this form of accommodation. The establishment of separate minor residential units under previous District Plan provisions has resulted in a doubling of the density in areas where such units have been established. Adverse environmental effects associated with such development have included an increase in traffic, loss of open space, loss of trees and vegetation and effects on the privacy of neighbouring properties. Minor residential units as a permitted activity have therefore been removed from the District Plan. However in recognition of the social benefits that such housing provides, the definition of residential unit allows a second kitchen sink or dishwashing facility so that dependant relatives can be accommodated. These facilities will be required to be removed once the dependant relative no longer resides there.

124

Expected Environmental Results • A range of housing densities and forms, including minor residential units appropriate to the location,

and character of the area and size of the lot, as measured by a five-yearly residential land use survey, an annual assessment of building consents issues and an annual assessment of subdivisions approved.

• Establishment of minor residential units for extended family members, as measured by an annual assessment of building consents issued

16.5 Rules: Residential Activities 16.5.1 Determination of Activity Status

Table 16.2 Residential Activities Activities

Zones Settlement

1 Natural 2

Built 3

Main 4 Main 4

Peripheral5

Intensive 6

Office 7

A B Minor Residential Units on sites with a minimum net site area of 600sqm or greater

P D D P P P P P

Minor Residential Units on sites with a minimum net site area of less than 600sqm

D D D D D D D D

16.6.2.4 Outdoor Living Space a) Residential 1-7 Zones Each residential or minor residential unit shall be provided with an outdoor living space which: i) Is not less than 80m², or for a minor residential unit is not less than 40m² in area; and 16.6.3 Additional Controls for Specific Activities Any activities listed in this rule shall comply with the controls specified in this rule in addition to those of Rule 16.6.1 General Development Controls. 16.6.3.1 Minor Residential Units a) Any minor residential unit shall not exceed 60 70m² gross floor area. b) No more than one residential unit may be on the same site as a minor unit, and only one minor residential unit may be erected on any site. c) Any minor residential unit shall comply with Rule 16.6.2.4(a) Outdoor Living Space and Rule 16.6.2.5 Service Court: Residential 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones. except that compliance with Rule 16.6.2.4(a) Outdoor Living Space, Rule 16.6.2.5 Service Court: Residential 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones and Section 12.4.2.1 Parking Standard is not required if the unit is provided in rooms in an existing house which are used by an elderly or dependent relative being cared for as part of an extended family. A statutory

125

declaration that the accommodation is to be used only for a family member and that the new owners will be informed of this restriction if the house is sold, is required from the owners. Control Flexibility Available only in relation to (a) above. Application may be made to increase the gross floor area up to 80m², where part of an existing building is proposed to be converted for this purpose. Explanation and Reasons The purpose of this control is to provide for the establishment of a small dwelling in association with a main residential unit which can either provide accommodation for a relative or be used as a home and income. The control seeks to ensure that the minor residential unit and the main residential unit retain a good standard of amenity. 17.7.1 Determination of Activity Status Activities Residential Expansion

Zone Albany Centre Expansion

Zone Housing Minor Residential Units on sites with a minimum net site area of 600sqm or greater

P P

Minor Residential Units on sites with a minimum net site area of less than 600sqm

D D

17.8.3 Additional Controls for Specific Activities 17.8.3.1 Minor Residential Units A minor residential unit shall comply with the following:

a) It shall not exceed 60 80m2 gross floor area. b) The minor residential unit shall be located on a site which contains not more than one other

residential unit. c) The residential unit and its associated minor residential unit shall comply with rule 16.6.2.4 (a) and

rule 16.6.2.5 (Living Courts and Service Courts). Control Flexibility Available only in relation to Clause (a) to a maximum 90m2 gross floor area, where part of an existing building is converted for this purpose, by means of a Limited Discretionary Application. Explanation and Reasons The purpose of this control is to provide for the establishment of a small dwelling in association with a main residential unit which can either provide accommodation for a relative or be used as a home and income. The control seeks to ensure that the minor residential unit and the main residential unit retain a good standard of amenity.

126

17A.4.1 Determination of Activity Status

Table 17A.1 Structure Plan Zone Activities Activities Albany

Structure Plans: Area A: Environmental Protection Greenhithe Structure plans: Area A: Mixed Environmental

Area B: Large Lot Residential

Area C: Standard Residential

Area D: Varied Residential

Mixed Use Overlay Area

Minor Residential Units in Albany Structure Plans on sites with a minimum net site area of 600sqm or greater

P P P P

Minor Residential Units in Albany Structure Plans on sites with a minimum net site area of less than 600sqm

D D D D

Minor Residential Units in Greenhithe Structure Plans on sites with a minimum net site area of 600sqm or greater

P P P P

Minor Residential Units in Greenhithe Structure Plans on sites with a minimum net site area of less than 600sqm

D D D D

17A.5.2.3 Outdoor Living Spaces c) Area C: Standard Residential Each residential or minor residential unit shall be provided with an outdoor living space which: i) is not less than 60 80m2, or for a minor residential unit is not less than 40m2 in area; and 17A.5.4 Additional Controls for Specific Activities 17A.5.4.1 Minor Residential Units

i) a) In the Albany Structure Plans: Any minor residential unit shall not exceed 60 70m2 gross floor area. b) In the Greenhithe Structure Plans:

127

Any minor residential unit shall not exceed 60 70m2 gross floor area. where the lot size is less than 4000m2 and 80m2 gross floor area where the lot size is 4000m2 or greater.

ii) No minor residential unit shall be located on a site which contains more than one other residential unit; and

iii) Any minor residential unit shall comply with rule 17A.5.2.3 Outdoor Living Spaces and rule 17A.5.2.4 Service Courts.

17A.5.4.1.1 Control Flexibility A limited Discretionary activity application may be made to increase the gross floor area up to 80m2, where part of an existing building is proposed to be converted for this purpose. 17A.5.4.1.2 1 Explanation and Reasons This control provides for a small ancillary dwelling which can be used for a relative, or as a home and income, while protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties. Section 21 – Definitions Residential Unit Means any self-contained residence of one or more persons as a single household which in each case contains one kitchen sink or dishwashing facility, and includes any dwelling house, flat, home unit or townhouse or papakaianga housing on ancestral land. A second kitchen sink or dishwashing facility to enable dependant relatives to be accommodated within a residential unit shall not constitute a separate unit. Note: An agreement will be required to be entered into with the Council for the removal of the sink/dishwashing facility once the dependant relative(s) no longer reside there. 16.7.3.23 Assessment Criteria for Minor Residential Units on Sites Less Than 600sqm

a) Proposals shall be designed to ensure no more than minor adverse effects on the amenities of the site, adjoining sites and the neighbourhood as a whole;

b) The design and visual appearance of the minor residential unit shall be compatible with the principal dwelling;

c) Vehicle access shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the addition of a minor residential unit on the site;

d) Onsite manoeuvring and carparking shall be adequate and carparking shall be located in a practical location in relation to the minor residential;

e) Additional landscaping and planting shall be undertaken to enhance the amenities of the site and achieve a reasonable level of visual privacy;

f) The size and location of additional buildings on the site when combined with the existing dwelling and accessory buildings shall maintain the amenity values and character of the site and locality;

g) Whether adverse effects can be avoided or mitigated by having a minor residential unit attached to or incorporated into the existing dwelling as opposed to a free standing minor residential unit.

2. Boarding Houses

Table 16.2 Residential Activities Activities

Zones Settlement

1 Natural 2

Built 3

Main 4 Main 4

Peripheral5

Intensive 6

Office 7

A B Residential care centre or Boarding house housing up to 7 5 4 residents (including

P P P P P P P P

128

excluding live-in support staff and family members or a maximum of 10 people including live-in support staff and family members) Residential care centre or boarding house housing 8 6 5 or more residents (including excluding live-in support staff and family members or a maximum of 10 people including live-in support staff and family members))

D D in Res 2B only

D D D D D D

Residential care centre housing up to 7 residents (including live-in support staff)

P P P P P P P P

Residential care centre housing 8 or more residents (including live-in support staff)

D D in Res 2B only

D D D D D D

Section 21. Definitions Boardinghouse Means a residential building in which board and/or lodging is provided or intended to be provided for reward or payment for three or more boarders or lodgers (other than members of the family of the occupier or person in charge or control of the building) but does not include a licensed hotel or building forming part of a motor camp or hostel. 3. Coastal Conservation Area/Foreshore Yard 8.4 Natural Environment Rules 8.4.1 Protection of Natural Coastal Character 8.4.1.1 Controlled Activities All buildings and structures in the Coastal Conservation Area that do not require above ground stormwater infrastructure shall be Controlled activities. (Note: the status of an activity may change according to controls in other sections of the Plan.)

129

8.4.1.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled Activities All Controlled activities must comply with all relevant controls of the Plan. In addition, the Council may impose conditions in respect of the matters specified in Sections 108 and 220 of the RMA, and any of the matters referred to in the assessment criteria set out below: e) Wherever possible stormwater shall be disposed of in locations other than the coastal edge. f) Development proposals should ensure that any stormwater pipes or runoff of stormwater resulting from within the development activity does not lead to a reduction in water quality in the coastal marine area, contribute to any erosion, or detract from the natural character of the coastal environment. Existing criteria g) to be renumbered f). 8.4.1.3 Limited Discretionary Activities All above ground stormwater infrastructure, including pipes protruding from cliff faces, in the Coastal Conservation Area shall be a limited discretionary activity. 8.4.1.4 Restrictions – Limited Discretionary Activity For a limited discretionary activity, the Council may grant or refuse consent, and (if granted) may impose conditions under Section 108 of the RMA in respect of the following matters over which it has restricted its discretion: Design and implementation of site works; Location and design of structures and infrastructure; Protection of landforms, vegetation and heritage features; Reinstatement and landscaping; Protection of riparian margins; Granting, reserving and extinguishment of easements; Maintenance requirements; The methods used for stormwater treatment and disposal within the coastal conservation/foreshore yard areas. 8.4.1.5 Assessment Criteria for Limited Discretionary Activities a) Development proposals should ensure that any stormwater pipes or runoff of stormwater resulting

from the development activity does not lead to a reduction in water quality in the coastal marine area; b) The proposal will have no more than minor adverse effects on the landscape and the amenity value of

the foreshore or any adjacent beach, reserve area, or walkway, as a result of the cumulative effect of structures/infrastructure;

c) The proposal does not increase the natural rate of erosion or create significant risk of accelerated erosion and/or instability of the site or adjacent land;

d) If the land is affected by coastal erosion, structures are located or designed so as to minimise or avoid the need for associated coastal protection works and/or effects on the amenity of the area are not increased as cliffs erode;

e) The location of any structure takes into account secondary or overland flow paths; f) Consideration is given to the use of alternative stormwater management techniques to control

stormwater at source, including rain tanks and rain gardens; g) There is provision for adequate and ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure. 16.6.1.5A Foreshore Yard The foreshore yard is the setback distance identified in Appendix 21E. Provided that: For the purpose of the foreshore yard, ‘building’ has the Plan definition but also includes: a) any fence, boundary wall or combination thereof greater than 1 metre in height above natural ground level. b) structures such as swimming pools and boat storage sheds, whether those structures are above or below ground. c) coastal protection works including retaining walls of any height where the retaining walls are used for coastal protection, palisade walls, and other coastal protection measures such as rock deposits, whether those structures or measures are above or below ground.

130

d) above ground stormwater infrastructure. AND In those areas where Appendix 21E specifies that a foreshore yard reference line is to be applied, for the foreshore yard area between Mean High Water Springs and the foreshore yard reference line, ‘building’ means any structure and includes any decks, terraces, steps, fences, retaining walls and coastal protection measures. Control Flexibility 1. An application may be made for a building in the foreshore yard as a Limited Discretionary activity, provided that: a) the foreshore yard is reduced by no more than 33.3 percent of the width specified in Appendix 21E, or b) the application is for a fence, boundary wall or combination thereof greater than 1 metre and less than 1.8 metres in height above natural ground level (provided that where the foreshore yard reference line is applied, the building is not within the area between Mean High Water Springs and the foreshore yard reference line);or c) the application is for above ground stormwater infrastructure. Limited discretionary applications will be assessed in accordance with the assessment criteria in Rule 16.7.5 and Rule 16.7.5.1. 16.7.5.1 Foreshore Yard In assessing an application in the foreshore yard account shall be taken of: b) The proposed development is for: small-scale development such as accessory buildings, swimming pools, decks or terraces or above ground stormwater infrastructure. l) Where the proposal is for above ground stormwater infrastructure within the foreshore yard, the criteria in 8.4.1.5 shall apply, in addition to the above criteria, where relevant. 4. Landform, Vegetation & Landscaping 16.7.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities Controlled Activities All Controlled activities must comply with the relevant rules of the Plan. In addition, the Council may impose conditions in respect of the matters specified in Sections 108 and 220 of the RMA, and any relevant criteria specified below. Discretionary Activities Without restricting the exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse consent or impose conditions, the Council will have regard to the assessment criteria set out below when considering any application under Sections 104 and 105 104B of the RMA. For the demolition or removal of an existing house in the Residential 3 zone, the Council restricts the exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse consent to the matters set out in 16.7.3.3 Demolition or Removal of Existing House in the Residential 3 zone. h) Environment i) In all residential areas, development should be designed to minimise any adverse effects on the environment. In the vicinity of the coast the natural and visual qualities of the coast should be protected, and in the Residential 1 and 2 zones development should be designed to protect the particular natural qualities which characterise these areas. ii) Activities and associated development should not have any adverse effect on any building, tree or feature scheduled in Appendix 8A to Appendix 8F. iii) Consent will be refused to those Discretionary activities which could have a significant adverse effect on environmental values. In addition the following matters shall be considered:

• The extent to which existing vegetation and landforms are retained and landscaping adds to the amenity of the development and assists in stormwater management;

131

• Excavations and retaining walls/structures beyond that permitted by this plan should generally be incorporated within the building footprint;

• The design and location of buildings accommodates existing mature trees and native bush protected by this plan and incorporates these into the site and landscape design; excluding any trees included in the ARC list of noxious plants;

• Areas of native bush and natural watercourses within or adjoining the site should be retained and/or not compromised by the development in terms of their long term protection;

• On site landscaping should be designed to enhance the appearance of the development, assist in stormwater management, and soften or screen the visual impact of car parking and service areas;

• Low impact stormwater design methods including source control should be incorporated into the site, building and landscaping design;

• Additional landscaping should be integrated or complementary to natural vegetation and assist stormwater management.

5. Minimum Lot Sizes – Res 4A & 4B 9.4.5.4 Residential 4 Zones a) Site Area Requirements • Residential 4A Zone Minimum Net Site Area

450m²; or

350m² where the associated residential unit or units have been granted resource consent in accordance with Rule 16.5.1. 400 sqm where: 1-5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a controlled activity on a vacant parent lot); 1-5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a limited discretionary activity on a parent lot containing an existing dwelling(s); More than 5 units per site at 400 sqm per unit as a discretionary activity.

• Residential 4B Zone Minimum Net Site Area

450m²; or

400m², where: 3-5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a controlled activity on a vacant parent lot 3-5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a limited discretionary activity on a parent lot containing an existing dwelling(s); More than 5 units per site at 400 sqm per unit as a discretionary activity associated residential units have been granted resource consent in accordance with Rule 16.5.1, or where an additional unit has been granted resource consent under the control flexibility referred to in Rule 16.6.2.3.

132

Except, the following minimum net site areas shall apply to applications for resource and/or building consent lodged with the Council prior to 6 April 2006, or any residential unit lawfully established between Oct 1994 and 6 April 2006, or to any landuse or development proposal that was partially completed prior to 6 April 2006. Former Residential 4A zone – 350m2 Former Residential 4B zone – 400m2 9.4.5.11 Structure Plan For the subdivision of all sites in the Residential 1-7 zones, that are 5000 sqm or larger, a structure plan shall be prepared as part of the subdivision consent. The structure plan shall be prepared in accordance with section 17.5.4 – 17.5.5 of this Plan and the Auckland Regional Council Guide to Structure Planning: A Regional Practice and Resource Guide 2005. 16.4.4 Residential 4 Zone: Main Residential Area Policies 3. By imposing two separate subzones (Residential 4A and4B) having different density controls in order to recognise and protect existing character and amenity and historical variations which have arisen in response to residential preference in housing styles and demand with:

a) The Residential 4A zone applying to those parts of Glenfield, Takapuna, Northcote and a small part of Devonport which had a development density of 300m2 – 325m2 per unit in the Transitional District Plan.

b) The Residential 4B zone applying to those parts of Birkenhead, East Coast Bays and a small part of Devonport which are characterised by a more spacious style of development.

4. By encouraging and facilitating less intense infill development in the Residential 4A zone by providing for these as a Permitted activity. 5. By requiring those developments in the Residential 4A zone which are at a higher density (400m2 – 449m2) to be assessed as a limited discretionary controlled activity to enable the impacts of the development on the neighbourhood to be mitigated. 6. By providing as discretionary activity in the Residential 4B zone for those larger unit developments which require minimal or no earthworks or tree removal to have a reduced area per unit in order to provide limited flexibility. 7. By ensuring that lots sizes for infill development and redevelopment of sites recognise and protect existing character and amenity values. 8. By ensuring that development on small infill lots is of a scale compatible with the lot size and is designed in a manner that maintains privacy of adjacent properties, retains a spacious character consistent with properties in the neighbourhood and provides opportunity for the retention or establishment of trees and gardens.

Renumber existing policies 7-10 as 9-12. Explanation and Reasons The Residential 4 zones are is the standard or conventional residential zones which extends over most of the developed urban area of the city. They The areas to which the zones apply generally enjoy high standards of amenity and are predominantly, but not exclusively, used for residential purposes. The zone recognises the need for further development while retaining and sustaining a good level of amenity and environmental quality. In particular, it provides opportunities for a limited range of non-residential activities required to serve residents’ daily needs and for some further infill development, and redevelopment provided minimum lot sizes are able to be achieved. The Residential 4 zone comprises two subzones, the Residential 4A and 4B zones. These two zones differ only in relation to the density of development that is provided for in each. The permitted density of development in the two zones to a large extent reflects historical variations within the city, which have arisen over time in response to resident preferences and variations in housing styles and demands. The Residential 4A zone applies to parts of Glenfield, Takapuna, Northcote, and a small area of Devonport. In the transitional District plan these areas were all affected by rules which provided for 300m2–325m2 of

133

land per residential unit. Developments at these densities have been causing increasing concern due to their impacts on the amenities of adjacent sites and the city as a whole. In the Plan, the Council has two principal options to address the problems arising from ‘as of right’ unit development at these higher densities – increase the minimum area required for each unit, or impose better control over development. It is largely this latter option that the council has chosen. The plan requires that developments of 2-5 units having an area of 350m2-449m2 per unit be considered as a Controlled activity. Those developments with a greater land area per unit, i.e. 450m2 or greater, per unit, can proceed as a permitted activity where not more than 2 units per site are proposed. The option of significantly increasing the land area required for all unit developments has been rejected due to the significant development expectations which now exist in these areas, and the need to accommodate increasing household growth. The Residential 4B zone applies to parts of East Coast Bays and Birkenhead. It continues the Transitional Plan’s requirement for 450m2 per unit, thereby ensuring that the amenities of these areas are retained and that, on a city wide basis, opportunities are provided for housing at a variety of different densities. In order to provide a limited degree of flexibility, opportunities are provided for unit area requirements to be slightly reduced for larger developments (3 or more units), provided that the impacts on the environment will be slight. Historically the Residential 4 zone comprised two subzones – Residential 4A and 4B. The Residential 4A zone applied to those parts of Glenfield, Takapuna, Northcote and a small part of Devonport which had a development density of 300m2 – 325m2 per unit in the transitional plan. The Residential 4B zoned applied to those parts of Birkenhead, East Coast Bays and a small part of Devonport which were characterised by a more spacious style of development. The historical difference was also recognised in the North Shore City District Plan 2002, with the two zones differing only in relation to the density of development that was provided for in each zone. The potential for infill development in the Residential 4 zone is now nearing capacity. Many of the remaining sites with infill potential have constraints relating to topography, the presence of regenerating native bush or mature tress, and existing dwellings or buildings which constrain new development. The redevelopment of sites is becoming common and this is resulting in the removal or demolition of existing dwellings. Infill developments where existing dwelling are retained at the densities permitted under the Transitional Plan and the 2002 Plan have resulted in increasing concern due to their impacts on the amenities of adjacent sites and the character of neighbourhoods generally. These developments often have multiple bulk and location encroachments which cumulatively impact on the character of a neighbourhood. For this reason, the minimum lot size density in the Residential 4A and 4B zones has been increased to 400 sqm per dwelling thereby ensuring that the character and amenity values of these areas are retained. An increase in lot size will also assist in maintaining a range of lot sizes in the Residential 4 zone. As there is no longer a density distinction between the two subzones, the former Residential 4A and 4B zones have been combined into one Residential 4 zone. Where a parent lot/site is redeveloped and the existing dwelling is either removed or relocated onsite and substantially upgraded, there is the ability to achieve a better design outcome as the constraints imposed by the existing dwelling are removed and the compatibility of design between the existing dwelling and the new one is not an issue. The plan also provides the opportunity to develop on smaller infill sites where the existing dwelling is retained as a limited discretionary activity. The activity status enables consent for poorly designed proposals to be declined. Expected Environmental Results

• Increased Provision for some additional infill development and the redevelopment of sites in the residential 4 zone, as measured by a five-yearly residential zone land use survey

Amend Table 16.2 Residential 4 Zone in accordance with the following (note other zones are not shown and the table is simplified to show the intention of the decision:

134

Activities Zones Main

4A Main 4B

Housing Residential units, not exceeding 1 per site where the site has a net site area of 450 sqm or greater

P P

Residential units 2-5 on a vacant parent site where the individual residential units have a: Net site area of 400 or greater; Net site area of 400 sqm or greater but only where the parent site can accommodate 3-5 lots

C

C

Residential units 2-5 on a parent site where the existing dwelling(s) are retained and where the individual residential units have a: Net site area of 400 sqm or greater; Net site area of 400 sqm or greater but only where the parent site can accommodate 3-5 lots

LD

LD

Residential units, more than 5 per site, in accordance with Rule 16.6.2.3 Density or Rule 16.6.2.2 Delineated Area

D D

16.6.2.2 Delineated Area Each residential unit shall have associated with it an area of land called a delineated area which shall be identified on a building consent application, provided that this rule does not apply to the following: development in the Residential 2C zone; multi-unit development on Lot 1 and 2 DP 42433 and lot 1 DP 58391 (8-12 Rangitira Ave, Takapuna); Intensive Housing in the Residential 6A-C zones; multi-unit developments in the Residential 6C or 7 zones; and Terraced Housing Developments. The delineated area shall:

a) Have access to the street in accordance with Rule 16.6.1.13 vehicle Access. b) Contain the unit, a share of communal open space, outdoor living space, service courts, access to

courts, and car parking spaces required to be provided in association with the unit, provided that each such delineated area shall include not more than 20m2 of communal entrance strip.

c) Comprise an area sufficiently large enough to comply with the net site area requirements of rule 16.6.2.3 Density and having no dimension smaller than 3 metres.

d) Include an area capable of containing a square of 12 metres by 12 metres which is clear of any required building line setback, foreshore yard or lakeside yard requirement, right of way easement, or the Eadys Bush Protection Line in accordance with Rule 9.4.5.9 Shape Factor.

Control Flexibility e) In the Residential 4B zone the minimum delineated area of any individual unit may be reduced to 400m2, where the reduction is necessary due to the location of the existing dwelling or a significant tree(s), provided that the average delineated area in the development shall not be less than 450m2 per unit. Control Flexibility shall not be used to reduce delineated areas due to the location of an existing dwelling, except as provided for in clauses (d) and (e) above.

135

16.6.2.3 Density Development of more than one residential unit per site in the Residential 1 to 7 zones shall comply with the provisions of Table 16.6. Control Flexibility Control Flexibility shall only be utilised in conjunction with Control Flexibility for Delineated Areas in accordance with the circumstances specified in Rule 16.6.2.2 Delineated Area. 16.6.2.3 Density Table 16.6 Density Zone Minimum Net Site Area Per

Residential Unit Other Controls

Residential 4A and 4B

450 m2, provided that: 4A: 1-5 units at 400 m2, per unit as a controlled activity on a vacant parent lot 4A: 1-5 units at 400 m2, per unit as a limited discretionary activity on a parent lot containing an existing dwelling(s) 4A: More than 5 units per site at 400m2 per unit as a Discretionary activity. 4B: 3-5 units at 400 m2, as a controlled activity on a vacant parent lot 4B: 3-5 units at 400 m2, as a limited discretionary activity on a parent lot containing an existing dwelling(s) More than 5 units per site at 400m2 per unit as a Discretionary activity.

Residential 6 6A and 6A1 6B and 6B1

The provisions of Residential 4A apply 2-5 units at 350m2 per unit as a controlled activity More than 5 units at 350m2 per unit as a Discretionary activity The provisions of Residential 4B apply 3 or more units at 400m2 per unit as a discretionary activity

Except, the following minimum net site areas shall apply to applications for resource and/or building consent lodged with the Council prior to 6 April 2006, or any residential unit lawfully established between Oct 1994 and 6 April 2006, or to any landuse or development proposal that was partially completed prior to 6 April 2006. Former Residential 4A zone – 350m2

136

Former Residential 4B zone – 400m2 Place existing Explanation and Reasons after Table 16.6. Explanation and Reasons Residential 4: The density in these zones has been imposed in recognition of existing development rights, but also have regard to the need to better control the impacts of more intense developments, particularly infill development, on the surrounding neighbourhood. 16.7.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities e) Building Design and Site Layout Proposals should be designed so as to ensure that there is no significant detraction from the amenities of adjoining sites or the neighbourhood as a whole. The following matters are of particular significance: iv) The bulk, design and appearance of buildings should be compatible with the established neighbourhood character, or in an area undergoing redevelopment, the desired future character as described in an approved structure plan or similar document for the area (if applicable). v) The bulk of the dwelling and associated accessory buildings are appropriate to the size of the lot and compliance with height in relation to boundary, site coverage, minimum permeable area and private open space requirements is achieved. Renumber existing iv) to be vi). 16.7.3.4 Residential Units as a Controlled Activity in the Residential 4A Zone 16.7.3.5 Three or More than 5 Residential Units With a Delineated Area of 400 450m2 as a Discretionary Activity in the Residential 4B Zone Section 21 Parent lot/site – means the allotment or site as it existed prior to any infill subdivision or development. Infill development – means any development where two or more units (excluding minor residential units) are located on the same parent lot or site which has earlier been subdivided and a single unit has been erected. Greenfields development – means the development of a vacant or undeveloped allotment. Brownfields development – means the redevelopment of a allotment that has been previously developed. Delineated area – means an area which is available for the exclusive use of the residential unit to which it relates, or which comprises part of a communal open space in accordance with Rule 16.6.2.4. It must have an area of at least the relevant zone density, and comply with the requirements of Section 16.6.2.2. Planning Map Changes Change the Residential 4A and 4B zones to a single Residential 4 zone. 6. Intensive Residential Development in the Residential 2 Zone 16.4.2 Residential 2 Zones 16.4.2.1 Residential 2A: Native Bush Areas

137

Policies 5. By providing for dwellings and apartment developments more intense forms of development, e.g. apartments, on existing areas which are clear of native vegetation where provision is made for the protection of the natural and amenity values of the balance of the site. Explanation and Reasons The type and range of development, activities and buildings permitted in the zone is restricted to those which are considered compatible with the zone’s protectionist emphasis. The zone seeks to provide for the use and development of existing cleared areas, while protecting land which is currently in native bush by minimising the development pressures on this land. Accordingly, the clustering development of housing in accordance with the Residential 2 Zone density controls, including apartments on existing cleared areas is provided for and encouraged., including housing forms such as higher density units, apartments and attached housing. However, in order to better control the impact of buildings on the landscape, all buildings are a Controlled activity. In general, additional clearing, whether it is for building platforms, access, or to establish additional cleared open space, will be discouraged and only minor clearing will be permitted. Section 21 Apartment Building Means a single building comprising two or more residential units. 16.5.1 Determination of Activity status Table 16.2 Residential Activities Activities Zones Natural

2 Apartments in the Residential 2A zone D Terrace housing for up to 3 residential units in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density

D

Terrace housing for more than 3 residential units in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density

D

16.7.3 Additional Assessment Criteria for Specific Activities 16.7.3.7 Apartments in the Residential 2A Zone a) The proposed apartment building and its associated access shall be situated on land which is clear of vegetation. b) The development should not require large scale earthworks. c) The number of household units which comprise the apartment complex shall not exceed one per 800 550m² of net site area. When calculating this ratio, regard shall be had to any other household units which may exist on the site. d) The assessment criteria contained in Rule 16.7.3.6, Intensive Housing in the Residential 6 zone, and Retirement Complexes shall apply. e) The building(s) bulk, location and design shall be compatible with the residential character and amenity values of the locality. 7. Separation Distance Between Units 16.6.1.5 Other Yards Subject to the provisions contained in the following clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), development in the Residential 1-7 zones shall comply with the controls of Table 16.3:

138

Yards in Residential Zones: a) Provided that for the purpose of this control the delineated area boundary around any unit, whether subdivided, cross-leased or not, shall be treated as a site boundary for which corresponding yards are required. b) Special Provision: Side and Rear yards Notwithstanding the above side and rear yard provisions, in all zones except the Residential 1 and 2A zones, a building may be erected in any side or rear yard where the written consent of the property owner of the land adjacent to the affected boundary is obtained; provided that where the required neighbours’ consent has not been obtained, the proposal may be considered under Control Flexibility. Except this rule shall not apply to yards from delineated boundaries where infill development is proposed, but remains valid in relation to other yards that relate to the external boundaries of the site. Any reduction in the required yard from a delineated boundary shall be a limited discretionary activity. Where the redevelopment of a parent site occurs, yards from delineated boundaries may be reduced with the written consent of the property owner of the land adjacent to the affected boundary is obtained. Control Flexibility By means of a Limited Discretionary activity application, with the length of that part of the building infringing the yard to be no greater than 10 metres. Except: No Control Flexibility for the lakeside yard; and No Control Flexibility for infill development or additions or alterations to infill development. in respect of the separation distance between dwellings/units 16.7.5.4 Side and Rear Yards In assessing an application for the reduction in side and rear yards account shall be taken of: a) The building should not visually dominate adjoining properties. b) The effects of the use, design and location of buildings on the adjoining site(s) should be avoided or

mitigated through the design of the proposed building and in particular the design and location of windows, doors and decks.

c) Building design and use of materials on the same parent site should be compatible. d) The reduced yard enables more efficient use of the site. e) Visual privacy is maintained. f) Compliance with fire requirements is achieved. 8. Visual Privacy 16.7.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities e) Building Design and Site Layout Proposals should be designed so as to ensure that there is no significant detraction from the amenities of adjoining sites or the neighbourhood as a whole. The following matters are of particular significance: i) The maintenance of an appropriate level of visual and aural privacy on neighbouring sites by such factors as building design and layout, landscaping, screening and appropriate separation distances from boundaries to buildings, outdoor activity areas, car parking and manoeuvring, particularly on smaller sites of less than 500 sqm in area. vi) Development of sites less than 600 sqm in the Residential 3 and 4 zones should be of a smaller scale than is expected on larger sites, and designed in a manner which enables the retention of privacy, maintains a spacious appearance, and provides opportunities for the retention or establishment of trees and gardens in keeping with the neighbourhood.

139

16.6.2.6 Visual Privacy a) Between Principal Living Rooms In order to avoid direct views from the principal living room(s) of one unit into that those of another, there shall be a minimum separation distance of 20 metres between the main glazing of the principal living room(s) of one unit and that of another unit situated on either the same or an adjoining lot site or delineated area, provided that where the windows are less than 20 metres apart, either: i) The living room(s) main glazing is located at least 10 metres from the nearest site boundary or delineated area boundary of that unit; or ii) The main glazing of any principal living room shall be offset so that it is not possible to draw a horizontal angle of less than 120o from one window to another; or iii) Fencing, trellis or a vegetative screen of appropriate height and density shall be provided as a visual screen between the two windows. Compliance options are illustrated in Appendix 16E. b) Between Principal Living Rooms and Outdoor Living Spaces In order to avoid direct views from the principal living room(s) of one residential unit into the outdoor living space of another residential unit (whether on the same, or an adjoining lot site or delineated area), the main glazing of the principal living room(s) shall not be within 10 metres of the outdoor living space of another unit (measured at right angles to the glazing), unless: i) The windows have a sill height greater than 1.5 metres or comprise opaque or non-transparent glass; or ii)i) A visual screen between the window and the outdoor living space is provided by fencing, trellis, vegetative screen or other feature (e.g. topography, garden shed); or iii)ii) The consent of the affected owners has been obtained. on the building consent plans. Provided that where the required neighbours’ consent has not been obtained, the proposal may be considered under control flexibility where the proposal satisfies the criteria contained in rule 16.7.4 Assessment criteria. Compliance options are illustrated in Appendix 16F. c) Balconies and decks In order to prevent direct views from the balcony or deck of one residential unit into the outdoor living space of another residential unit (whether on the same or an adjoining lot site or delineated area), any balcony or deck which is situated adjacent to a the principal living room and that has any part of it the deck floor 1.5 metres or more above natural ground level shall comply with the following: i) No part of the balcony or deck shall be located within a horizontal distance of 10 metres of an outdoor living space of another residential unit (whether on the same or an adjoining lot site or delineated area) unless either: • A visual screen is provided between the balcony or deck and the outdoor living space by such means as an architectural feature, fencing, trellis or vegetative screen of appropriate height and density; or • The consent of the affected owners has been obtained. on the building consent plans. Provided, that where the required neighbours’ consent has not been obtained, the proposal may be considered under Control Flexibility where the proposal satisfies the criteria contained in Rule 16.7.4 Assessment Criteria. This rule is illustrated in Appendix 16G. Control Flexibility Unrestricted in nature or extent, by means of a Limited Discretionary activity application. Visual Privacy Appendices Amend Appendices 16E:Visual Privacy Between Living Rooms Determined at the Main Glazing; Appendix 16F: Visual Privacy Between Living Rooms and Living Courts and Appendix 16G: Visual Privacy Between a Balcony and Living court and Between Two Living Courts by deleting the word “principal” from “principal living room”. Section 21 Definitions Principal Living Room

140

Means a lounge or family room or such other similar room which is identified as the principal living room of in a residential unit. Main Glazing Means any large glazed window or door. It shall not include glazing with a minimum sill height of 1.5 m above any floor level with an outlook from that window, or any glazing on the face of a wall associated with a living room where the total glazed area is less than 1 sqm. Main glazing shall not comprise any glazing that consists of opaque or non-transparent glass. 9. Open Space 16.6.2.4 Outdoor Living Space a) Residential 1-7 Zones Each residential or minor residential unit shall be provided with an outdoor living space which: i) Is not less than 80m², or for a minor residential unit is not less than 40m² in area; and ii) Contains no dimension less than 4 metres; and iii) Is able to contain a circle with a 6 metre diameter. Has no more than 50% of it located to the south of any part of the unit to which it relates, in accordance with the diagram in Appendix 16D; and iv) Is conveniently accessible from the dwelling’s principal living room. The outdoor living space may be reduced to 60m² where it is directly adjacent and directly accessible from this room; and v) Where a unit does not have its living room at ground floor level, it shall have: • Convenient access to the outdoor living space; and • A balcony having a minimum area of 10m², with no dimension less than 1.8 metres, such balcony to adjoin and have direct access from the living room of the unit for which it is provided. The outdoor living space may be reduced in size in direct ratio to the size of the balcony by a maximum of 10m². vi) Has a gradient of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) over the 6m diameter circle after the completion of site works Control Flexibility Unrestricted in nature or extent, by means of a Limited Discretionary activity application, Except: No control flexibility for infill development in respect of the area and dimension of outdoor living spaces. 16.7.5.2 Outdoor Living Space In assessing an application for the reduction in outdoor living space account shall be taken of: a) The usefulness of the open space provided in terms of gradient, orientation to the sun, ease of

access from main living areas, appropriateness of it location in relation to the dwelling; b) Whether a combination of spaces such as balconies, decks, courtyards and outdoor living space can

be designed to achieve usable open spaces. 10. Vehicle Crossings 12.4.2.7 Vehicle Crossings Vehicle crossings shall meet the following requirements: a) Numbers of Crossings In all zones vehicle crossings, including those over footpaths and/or channels, shall comply with the following requirements: The maximum number of crossings and the maximum width of each crossing at the boundary of the site shall be determined as follows:

141

Table 12.3 Vehicle Crossing Standards i) For sites in all zones except Business zones and infill subdivision and development in Residential Zones Street Frontage

No. of Residential Units

Maximum No. of Crossings

Maximum Width of Each Crossing at Site Boundary

Minimum Width

Less than 18 metres

Less than 6

1

3.5 metres 2.75 metres

More than 6 1

5.5 metres

2.75 metres

18 metres or more

2

A total of 5.5 metres and if 2 crossings are established they must be located at least 9.5 metres apart

2.75 metres

For sites created by infill subdivision and or development in Residential zones, any new vehicle crossing(s), in addition to those that currently exist, shall be a limited discretionary activity. Discretion shall be limited to the number, width and location of crossings. The assessment criteria in 12.5.1.2(d) shall apply. Except that this rule shall not apply where a front site is subdivided into two front sites or a through site is subdivided to create two front sites. 12.5.1.2 Additional Assessment Criteria for Control Flexibility d) Number and Widths of Crossings and Proximity of Crossings to Intersections An application to provide an alternative arrangement for a vehicle crossing will be assessed against the following:

• The need for an increase in the width of any crossing or the number of crossings to be provided, based on the configuration of the site, and the access requirements of the activity concerned

• The safe ingress and egress of vehicles to the site and the safe movement of vehicles on the adjoining road network

• The cumulative effect of additional vehicle crossing(s) on traffic, cyclist and pedestrian safety • The extent to which other users of the road reserve, including pedestrians, will be adversely

affected • The practicalities of sharing the use of an existing vehicle crossing(s) • In the Mixed Use Overlay Area, the extent to which The number of on-street parking spaces is

reduced. that are lost as a result of the additional vehicle crossing. • The loss of grass berm space and opportunity for street trees and the effects on stormwater

management and the amenity of the street 11. Setback of Buildings From Street Frontage 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports The establishment of a private garage or carport shall comply with the following: a) In the Residential 1-7 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 zones the provisions of Rule 16.6.1.4 Front Yards shall apply to garages. In addition, the following shall apply to the Residential 1-2 & 4-7 zones: i) Where a garage door or carport entry faces the street the garage or carport must not exceed 50 per cent of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit to which they relate; except this rule shall not apply to two or more storey dwellings/residential units with ground floor or basement garaging. ii) They must be set back at least 1 metre behind the front face of the dwelling or unit. iii) Where a garage door or carport entry faces the street, it must be set back at least 5 metres from the street boundary it faces where they face the street.

142

b) In the Residential 5 zone: i) Private garages may be erected in the front yard either independently or attached to the main building provided that the garage is set back 1.5 metres from the front boundary, does not exceed 3.5 metres in height and does not exceed 20% of the front yard. ii) There shall be no other buildings within the front yard. Control Flexibility As per Control Flexibility in Rule 16.6.1.4 Front Yards and by means of a Limited Discretionary activity application for rules (i) & (ii) above. Explanation and Reasons In the Residential 1-2 & 4-7 1-4 and 6-7 Zones, the purpose of this rule is to ensure that garages do not dominate the streetscape, and that sufficient space is available between garages and the street to allow a car to be parked in this location without encroaching on the street and obstructing pedestrians. The purpose of this control is to provide opportunities for garages to be established as of right within the front yards of sites zoned Residential 5, but with controls to ensure that the impacts on adjacent sites and the streetscape are minimised. The Residential 5 zone requires that a comprehensive and integrated approach be adopted in the subdivision design, housing layout and landscaping of new neighbourhoods. This rule and its Control Flexibility together provide the flexibility that allows this process to take place. 16.7.5.3 Garages/Carports Exceeding 50% of the Width of the Front Face of the Dwelling In assessing garages or carports that exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the associated dwelling, the following matters shall be taken account of:

a) The design and location of the garage or carport in relation to the dwelling and whether visual contact between the dwelling and street is maintained;

b) The effect of the garage or carport on the appearance of the street or streetscape and the cumulative effect of other garages or carports in the vicinity;

c) The compatibility of the design and materials of the garage or carport with the dwelling; d) The effect of existing trees, hedges or vegetation or proposed landscaping on the

screening/softening of the garage or carport when viewed from the street; e) The appropriateness of any existing or proposed fencing in screening or mitigating the effect of

the garage or carport; f) The relationship of adjoining sites and buildings to the proposed garage or carport; g) Whether there are any topographical or other physical constraints that limit options for the design

and location of garages or carports. 16.7.2 Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities f) Streetscape and Neighbourhood Character and Amenity The criteria in 16.7.3.6 (a) shall apply where applicable. Renumber existing criteria accordingly. Section 21 Front Face of the Dwelling Means the building elevation, excluding any architectural features, on a front or corner site as viewed from the street. On a corner site, the elevation containing the front door shall be deemed the front face of the dwelling. All facades of the building that are at an angle of 45o or less measured parallel with the adjacent street front boundary shall be included”. 12. Residential 3 Lot Sizes 9.4.5.3 Residential 3 Zone a) Site Area Requirements • Residential 3A Zone

143

Minimum Net Site Area 400m² 450m² Except, the following minimum net site area shall apply to applications for resource and building consent lodged with the Council prior to 6 April 2006 or any residential unit lawfully established prior to 6 April 2006 – 400m2 • Residential 3B Zone Minimum Net Site Area 500m² • Residential 3C Zone Minimum Net Site Area 600m b) Minimum Frontage Requirements See Rule 9.4.5.8. Residential 3A, 3B and 3C zones Front Sites 12m Corner Sites 24m Rear Sites No rear sites shall be permitted. See Rule

9.4.5.8 Except, rear sites with a minimum site area of 400 sqm shall be permitted for resource and building consents lodged with the Council prior to 6 April 2006 or a residential unit lawfully established prior to 6 April 2006; c) Shape Factor See Rule 9.4.5.9. d) Terraced Housing See Rule 9.4.5.10. 9.4.5.8 Minimum Frontage and Access Requirements All sites in the Residential 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones, and rear sites in the Residential 1 and 2 zones shall comply with the following: 16.4.3 Residential 3 Zone: Built Heritage Objective To ensure that the historical and architectural character of certain distinctive areas of North Shore City is retained. Policies 2. By using regulatory methods which: c) Limit the intensity of development and controlling infill development. d) Control demolition and removal of houses, and control alterations and new building work to retain and enhance coherent streetscapes, avoid adverse effects on adjacent properties and maintain the visual record of earlier settlements. 5. By ensuring the retention of mature native trees and mature exotic trees, and private open spaces that enhance the historical or architectural character of the heritage area and contribute to the amenity, landscape and ecological values of the area. Explanation and Reasons Built heritage is vulnerable to unsympathetic development and, to be sustainable, the special character must be identified and protected against the impacts of changes. The planning policies and rules address the elements which together contribute to the character. The age, style and condition of the buildings are the most important elements, but others include the space around buildings, orientation to the street,

144

landscape design and planting, and complementary community and commercial facilities. The combination of these elements is as important as any one of them and some are capable of ameliorating adverse impacts. Landscape planting, in particular, can help to screen out incompatible building bulk while at the same time complement the scale of buildings and provide attractive surroundings. In addition, only a single dwelling per site is permitted and infill development is not provided for. Such forms of development have resulted in the loss of trees and the openness of the site and adversely affected the visual privacy of adjoining properties. Dwellings (1-4) in the Residential 3A zone are a limited discretionary activity to enable the effects of developments to be adequately assessed and to encourage good quality design that is compatible with the character of the area. 16.5.1 Determination of Activity Status Table 16.2 Residential Activities Activities Zones Built

3A 3B & 3C Residential units, not exceeding 1 per site C LD C Residential units, not exceeding 2 per site, in accordance with Rule 16.6.2.3 Density • Or has been granted consent in accordance with Rule 16.6.2.2 Control Flexibility • Or where each unit has a minimum delineated area of 450m²

C LD C C LD C

Residential units 3-5 per site, in accordance with Rule 16.6.2.3 Density, or has been granted consent in accordance with rule 16.6.2.2.2. Control Flexibility

• Where each unit has a minimum delineated area of 450m²

• Where each unit has a minimum delineated area of 400m²

C LD C

16.6.2.3 Density Table 16.6 Density Zone Minimum Net Site Area Per

Residential Unit Other Controls

Residential 3

3A

3B

3C

400m² 450 m² 500m² 600m²

145

Except, a minimum net site area per residential unit of 400 sqm shall apply to applications for resource and building consent lodged with the Council prior to 6 April 2006 or any residential unit lawfully established prior to 6 April 2006. 13. Other Matters Rezone 45 Birkdale Road from Res 2A to Res 4B Amend Assessment criteria 16.7.3.6 in the following manner: a) Streetscape and neighbourhood character and amenity The extent to which the Developments should integrates well with the immediate locality and contributes positively to the wider street scene: (remaining text is unaltered) b) Building form The extent to which The architectural qualities of the development are should be of a high standard: (remaining text is unaltered) c) Outlook and outdoor spaces The extent to which The development should provides for occupants to enjoy a reasonable outlook and useful outdoor space(s): (remaining text is unaltered) d) Privacy The extent to which The development should provides for the visual and aural privacy of occupants and neighbours (remaining text is unaltered) e) Landform, vegetation and landscaping The extent to which Existing vegetation and landforms should be are retained and landscaping should adds to the amenity of the development and assists in stormwater management: (remaining text is unaltered)

f) Traffic, parking, access, and pedestrian amenity The extent to which Traffic, parking and servicing requirements resulting from the development should can be effectively and efficiently catered for:

APPENDIX 2 Plan Change: 17 Addressing the Effects of Infill Housing on the Character of Residential Submitters Numbers, Names and Addresses and Summary of Relief Sought Topic 1 General Matters Opposed entire plan change. 9-2 David Anstiss 3 Maleme Avenue, Belmont North Shore City Decline the proposed plan change. 15-1 Roger Ball Dimension Surveyors Ltd PO Box 101712, North Shore Mail Centre North Shore City 61-1 Paul Connolly 8 Northboro Road, Takapuna North Shore City 77-1 Stephen Dennerly 2 William Souter Street, Forrest Hill North Shore City 81-1 Martin Drabble 7 Fallow Street, Browns Bay North Shore City 89-1 Gordon Edginton G K Agencies Ltd 102 Kyle Road, Albany North Shore City 267-1 Barry Rogers 876 East Coast Road, Browns Bay North Shore City 314-1 Andrew Thomson 46 Vauxhall Road, Devonport North Shore City Withdraw the plan change in its present form; or alternatively 20-1 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Delete the plan change in its entirety. 23-23 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-20 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Any additional relief that will meet the needs of the submitter, or such consequential or further relief to Plan Change 17 required to give effect to the submission. 23-24 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-21 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Delete all changes proposed. 28-8 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 85-8 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-8 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-8 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-8 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-8 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-8 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-8 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-8 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-8 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-8 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-8 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-8 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-8 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Reject the Plan Change in its entirety. 33-1 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-1 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-1 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 64-1 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 146-1 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 201-1 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 354-1 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Oppose Plan Change 17 – retain status quo, make things easier for people to do infill housing. 39-9 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Oppose Plan Change 17. 54-1 Lai Yoke Chuan 46 Ballymore Drive, Pinehill North Shore City 120-1 Wayne Harris 10 Buchanan Street, North Shore City 220-1 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF, Private Bag Wellington Attn: Director Estates Policy Withdraw Plan Change 17; or alternatively; 57-1 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City

Topic 1 General Matters Delete the Plan Change or amend it to take all factors into account. 58-1 Jonathan Coates 1 Rae Road, Castor Bay North Shore City Oppose the plan change, especially relating to minor residential units. 66-1 Lyn Coyne-Ward 22 Aplin Place, Birkdale North Shore City The proposed plan change be amended to give effect to matters raised in the submission or be deleted in its entirety. 67-1 Dennis Crampsie 2 Holiday Road, Milford North Shore City Withdraw proposed plan change and allow North Shore City to develop under the current regulations. 84-1 Dundalk Investments Ltd C/- Antony Kabalin 5 Phoebe Meikle Place, Torbay North Shore City Implement all the provisions of Plan Change 17. 87-1 Robert White East Coast Bays Coastal Protection 54 Peter Terrace, Castor Bay North Shore City Society

Plan change should be allowed. 92-1 Janis Fairburn 258C Onewa Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Make operative the plan changes (parts of Plan Change 17) 1-10 & 12. 110-1 Ian Grant 32 Lanigan Street, North Shore City Oppose plan change & want it cancelled. 121-1 Terry Harrison 6 Cracroft Street, North Shore City That the Council decline the proposed plan change or substantially amend it in the manner outlined in the 129-1 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Support the entire plan change. 131-1 John Hotchin-Davies 9 Inga Road, Milford North Shore City Withdraw the plan change in its entirety. 135-1 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Scrap proposed changes. 154-1 Antony Kabalin 5 Phoebe Meikle Place, Torbay North Shore City Decline the plan change. 157-1 Lance Kells 39 Whitby Crescent, Mairangi Bay North Shore City Support Plan Change 17, seek that all proposals are carried out 171-1 Bob Leenstra 2/7 Havelock Ave, Forrest Hill North Shore City Oppose Plan Change 17, seek that no changes are made 184-1 Robert Mach 21 Martin Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Proposed Plan Change 17 be withdrawn and re-notified in a less misleading way. 189-2 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 9 Glenwood Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Support proposed changes but they are too late as many areas are almost completely filled. Prefer to see even tighter restrictions. 228-1 M K and M J Norton 18A Hauraki Road, Takapuna North Shore City Cancel proposed changes and improve the control of building design for all housing, not just infill. 229-1 Andrew Nyhoff 38 Eversleigh Road, Takapuna North Shore City Withdraw proposed Plan Change 17. 262-1 Geoff Richards Geoff Richards Architects Ltd PO Box 32 556 , Devonport North Shore City 355-1 Chaoxi Yin 436 East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay North Shore City The refusal of any consequential changes and the retention of these as they currently are. 265-20(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants Implement the proposed changes. 269-1 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Decline Plan Change 17 in total. 274-1 Selwyn Ryan 2/5 Merriefield Avenue, Forrest Hill North Shore City Plan Change 17 be adopted in its entirety. 280-1 Clyde H Scott 12 Bridge View Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 281-1 M Carol Scott 12 Bridge View Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Implement Plan Change 17, Council should put in more resources and non compliance dealt with more expeditiously. 292-1 Kandasamy Sivapalan 27 Evelyn Place, Northcote North Shore City Proposed Plan Change 17 be not carried out and the status quo should remain. 293-1 D S Smith 32 Balmain Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Drop Plan Change 17, or owners be compensated using independent valuations.

Topic 1 General Matters 295-1 Keith Smith 36 Albert Road, Devonport North Shore City Support proposed changes. 297-1 Robyn and John Spooner 19 Lakeview Road, Takapuna North Shore City Delete Proposed Plan Change 17. 318-1 Peter Robert Thwaites 1/36 Cheltenham Road, Devonport North Shore City Support tighter controls that protect and enhance property values, but would like to see flexibility in their application. 320-1 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Seek that the proposed plan change is approved. 327-1 Marilyn, Joy and Michael VanDam 10 McDowell Crescent, Hillcrest North Shore City Oppose all changes in Plan Change 17. 333-1 John Wang 11 Tempo Place, Torbay North Shore City 335-1 Xing Wang 32 Rosalind Road, Glenfield North Shore City Support the provisions of Plan Change 17 but would like to see still larger lot sizes and more space around houses. 341-1 Barbara and Robert White 54 Peter Terrace, Castor Bay North Shore City Oppose Plan Change 17, leave District Plan as is. 358-1 Ray Clarke 1/35 Paramu Avenue, Birkdale Auckland Topic 2 Minor Residential Units That minor residential units be allowed to continue and to retain their sink/dishwashing facility. 2-1 Murray and Christine Aikenhead 17 Hollyhock Place, Browns Bay North Shore City Minor units should be allowed in all residential zones in NSC. 5-1 Alpha Property Trust 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 23-1 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 99-1 Gamma Property Trust C/- Corporate Trustee 682-684 Beach Road, North Shore City Retain the status quo for minor residential units, or alternatively limit minor residential units to those attached or constituting part of the main building on the site, and/or a gross floor area reduced to 50 sqm, and/or their establishment only on sites over a minimum net site area of 600 sqm. 8-1 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City That the deletion of the provision enabling the development of minor residential units for family members and infill housing generally be declined. 10-1 K A D and J B Archer MSC Consulting Group C/- PO Box 33-426, Takapuna North Shore City Alistair White

Make provision for minor residential units in all residential zones. 11-1 Angela Ashby 39 Compton Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 17-1 BCM NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman PO Box 303 162, North Harbour North Shore City 19-1 Beem Holdings Ltd Deirdrie McKenna c/- 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 38-1 Bruce Bushett 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 91-1 Eta Property Trust 23-25 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 96-1 Chris Fischer 16 Fernlea Rise, Glenfield North Shore City 101-1 Anna Gibb 36A Rothesay Bay Road, North Shore City 102-1 John Gibb 36A Rothesay Bay Road, North Shore City 105-1 GMP Investments GNA, GNA GNA 106-1 Adam Gower GMP Investments 8 Hiwihau Place, Glenfield North Shore City 107-1 Donna Gower GMP Investments GNA, GNA GNA 113-1 Marilyn Hamlyn 6 Santiago Place, Glenfield North Shore City 114-1 Paul Hamlyn Kokiri Developments GNA, GNA GNA 123-1 Richard Hayes 93B Island Bay Road, North Shore City 143-1 Nicole James 50 Rosecamp Road, Birkdale North Shore City 144-1 William James 49 Hale Crescent, Glenfield North Shore City 150-1 Sharlene Jones 20 Stonedge Lane, Albany North Shore City 151-1 Ty Jones 20 Stonedge Lane, Albany North Shore City 153-1 JWL Investments Ltd 9 Crown Hill Close, Milford North Shore City 156-1 Grant Kearney 13 Poplar Road, Stanmore Bay North Shore City 161-1 Kokiri Developments C/- Paul Hamlyn GNA, GNA GNA 172-1 Sean Levy PO Box 9173, Newmarket North Shore City 173-1 Nichole Lewis 6 Thelma Crescent, Torbay North Shore City 177-1 Christine Lim 13 Hogarth Rise, West Harbour North Shore City 178-1 Robert Lochore Lochore's Real Estate 96 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill North Shore City 187-1 David Maconaghie PO Box 34 072, Birkenhead North Shore City 190-1 Gerrard Martin 799B Beach Road, Browns Bay North Shore City 192-1 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd PO Box 32021, Devonport North Shore City 200-1 Deirdre McKenna 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 206-1 Brian Mearns 87 Island Bay Road, Birkenhead North Shore City

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units 239-1 Christopher Alan Pattison 872 Beach Road, Waiake North Shore City 242-1 Sarah Pearce 2/662 East Coast Road, Browns Bay North Shore City 246-1 Adam Pink-Martin PO Box 34 0093, Birkenhead North Shore City 247-1 Shona Pink-Martin 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 264-1 Risto NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman GNA, GNA GNA 270-1 Herb Rutley 110 Wade River Road, Whangaparaoa Auckland 271-1 Stuart Rutley 110 Wade River Road, Whangaparaoa Auckland 277-1 Matt Salmond GNA, GNA GNA 279-1 Leighton Sauni 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 284-1 Sharlene Jones Sharty Ltd 33 Weetman Drive, Browns Bay North Shore City 285-1 Ty Jones Sharty Ltd 1/109 Athena Drive, Glenfield North Shore City 287-1 Donna Shields 11 Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 288-1 Scott Shields 11 Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 296-1 Tim Smith 35 Manawa Road, 0 Auckland 301-1 Shari Stapleton 25 Mahara Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City 304-1 Ian Stewart 237 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby Auckland 305-1 Mark Stewart 10 Blundell Place, Birkenhead North Shore City 306-1 S M Stodart 24 Makepiece Place, Birkenhead North Shore City 312-1 Darren Taylor 41 Postman Road, Albany North Shore City 321-1 Christina M Trinnaman 134D Rangatira Road, Beach Haven North Shore City 322-1 Stuart Robert Trinnaman 134D Rangatira Road, Beach Haven North Shore City 337-1 Julie Waymouth 9A Hanlon Crescent, Devonport North Shore City 340-1 David Whitburn Fuzo PO Box 74-582, Market Road Auckland 349-1 Brad Worthington 33 Waiake Street, Torbay North Shore City 350-1 Merrilyn Joy Worthington 15 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City 351-1 Rex Worthington 15 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to minor residential units entirely. 14-1 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Have a min site size of 600 sqm for minor residential units as a permitted activity. 14-2 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Any second kitchen must be a minor residential unit and pay development contribution, additional rates etc. No restrictions as to user of minor residential units as enforcement is unworkable. 14-3 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose the complete banning of minor residential units. 16-1 A B Bansall-Allen 47 Park Hill Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Each case be decided on its merits, within Council rules. 16-2 A B Bansall-Allen 47 Park Hill Road, Birkenhead North Shore City That owners of large residential properties be given special consideration to subdivide, reducing 1500sqm section size to provide independent retirement dwelling. 18-1 A J and L C Bedford 16 Churchouse Road, Greenhithe North Shore City That owners of large residential properties be given special consideration to build a minor residential unit for independent living with support from the family home. 18-2 A J and L C Bedford 16 Churchouse Road, Greenhithe North Shore City Abandon proposed changes to minor residential units. 21-1 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Abandon proposed changes to outdoor living space as it relates to minor residential units and control flexibility. 21-7 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Reinstate the deleted minor residential unit provisions and the proposed changes to rules for minor residential units deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-4 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-1 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The deleted minor residential unit provisions should be reinstated and Rule 16.6.2.4(a)(v) should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-18 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-15 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Re-instate the provisions for minor residential units. 24-1 Malcolm Black 13 Rahui Road, Greenhithe North Shore City Delete the condition requiring the removal of the sink/dishwashing facility once dependant relatives are no longer accommodated. 25-2 Daphne Blackshaw 13a Penzance Road, Mairangi Bay North Shore City

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units Reinstate reference to minor residential units. That minor residential units be provided for subject to the unit being incorporated into the main structure of the main dwelling. 26-11 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Delete proposed changes to minor residential units. 28-1 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 46-1 P M Campbell PO Box 33398, Takapuna North Shore City 85-1 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-1 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-1 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-1 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-1 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-1 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-1 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-1 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-1 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-1 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-1 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-1 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-1 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Allow minor residential units as a permitted activity. 30-1 Mr J Bromley Webb Estate Ltd PO Box 33509, Takapuna North Shore City 31-1 Mr and Mrs Brown 829B Beach Road, Browns Bay North Shore City 189-1 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 9 Glenwood Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Retain the status of minor residential units as per Rule 16.5.1 of the District Plan. 33-10 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-2 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-2 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-4 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 201-10 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 354-2 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Retain the existing provisions relating to minor residential units as per Rule 16.6.3.1 of the District Plan & require a resource consent application for minor residential units as a controlled activity in all residential zones. 33-11 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-3 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-3 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-5 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 201-11 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 354-3 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Require resource consent applications as a controlled activity where minor residential unit is integrated within the main dwellings and a limited discretionary activity where minor residential units of 70 sqm are provided as a separate 33-12 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-4 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-4 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-6 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 354-4 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Introduce design guidelines and assessment criteria for the construction of minor residential units of 70 sqm. 33-13 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-5 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-5 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-7 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units 201-13 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 354-5 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 33-14 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 34-6 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 35-6 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd

Retain minor residential units and add provision for 2nd kitchen and dishwashing facility but delete the requirement for these to be removed once the dependant relative no longer resides there. 36-1 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to minor residential units – do not create more barriers, use land efficiently, use parks & reserve contributions to create open spaces. 39-5 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Oppose changes to minor residential units – there is a place for this type of development and can be adequately controlled without dispensing with them. 44-2 Murray Calder 28a Harley Road, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to open space associated with minor residential units. 44-6 Murray Calder 28a Harley Road, Takapuna North Shore City Proposed changes to minor residential units be dropped entirely. 47-1 Luigi Cappel 2 Marlborough Ave, Glenfield North Shore City Retain the right to build a minor residential unit as long as section sizes are greater than 750 sqm. 48-1 Jonathan Casement 6 Hanlon Crescent, Devonport North Shore City Restriction on minor residential units should no prevent homeowners from adding sleepout units with bathroom facilities, including a sink. 49-1 N G Chase 7 Mariposa Crescent, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete those aspects of Plan Change 17 relating to the removal of provision for minor residential units. 57-2 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City Maintain present minor residential unit policy. 60-2 Alan Collie ABC Properties Ltd 1A Aberdeen Road, Castor Bay North Shore City Retain provision for minor residential units on a site specific basis. 63-1 Colin Maxwell Couch 2 Garmons Way, Milford North Shore City Provide flexibility for controls for minor residential units on a site specific basis. 63-3 Colin Maxwell Couch 2 Garmons Way, Milford North Shore City Provide revaluation and rates reduction for existing sites that could have had a minor unit. 63-4 Colin Maxwell Couch 2 Garmons Way, Milford North Shore City Retain the status of minor residential units as a permitted activity. 64-2 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Make special provision for the construction of a minor residential unit at 8 Hillcrest Ave, Northcote as a permitted 64-3 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Retain the existing provisions relating to minor residential units and require resource consent application for minor residential unit of 70 sqm as a controlled activity in all residential zones. 64-4 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Require resource consent as a controlled activity where minor residential unit is integrated within the main dwelling and limited discretionary where it is a separate building of 70 sqm. 64-5 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Introduce deign guidelines and assessment criteria for the construction of minor residential units. 64-6 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 64-7 Mr C and Mrs M Couch C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units Oppose changes to minor residential units. 69-1 Gary and Karina Curran 8 Sealy Road, Torbay North Shore City 116-1 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City 179-1 Longyan Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St North Shore City 232-1 Alex Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City 253-1 Pride Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St Auckland 339-1 Westlake Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St Auckland 356-1 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Minor residential units a discretionary activity with approval dependant on the effects on the character of the area, size & suitability of existing house, size of lot, site coverage, non permeable surfaces, existing vegetation & access. 71-1 Pam Dalton 6a Westbourne Road, Murrays Bay North Shore City Consider a density based provision with additional criteria as considered necessary that provides for minor household units as a limited discretionary activity. 73-1 Davis Ogilvie and Partners Ltd PO Box 21738, Henderson Waitakere City Proposed amendment to the definition of a household unit to provide for a second kitchen sink or dishwashing facility for a dependant relative, which is to be removed at such time that the relative no longer resides there, is unenforceable and impractical. 73-2 Davis Ogilvie and Partners Ltd PO Box 21738, Henderson Waitakere City Allow minor residential units on sites larger than ¼ acre (1000 sqm). 74-1 Doreen Davy 35 Chatham Avenue, Albany North Shore City Continue to allow minor residential units. 75-1 Paul Davy 106B Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City Make provision for minor residential units in all zones. 76-1 Garry Denley 122 Rangatira Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to minor residential units. Only where there are many people in a large house at front of section with almost no space, should restrictions apply. 83-1 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Allow free standing minor residential units as a permitted activity but with all bulk and location rules being enforced with no flexibility & control of occupancy limited to a relative enforceable by way of covenant with the applicant and in perpetuity by way of consent notice. 86-4 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd PO Box 36 124, Northcote North Shore City Retain minor residential unit provisions. 88-1 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd PO Box 5164, Wellesley St Auckland 282-1 Igor Segroutes c/- Eclipse Group, PO Box 5164 Wellesley Street Auckland Provisions relating to housing for dependant relatives are strengthened by including additional requirements that have the effect of limiting the size & scale of such housing, and providing for outdoor living space and carparking. Such housing to be a controlled activity to secure performance of the removal of the kitchen facilities when no longer required for the intended purpose. Final sentence of the amended definition of residential unit could be specifically included in the controlled activity rule. Include specific assessment criteria with respect to the nature of the family and dependency reliance relationship. Other assessment criteria should address the size & scale of such housing, provision of outdoor living space, carparking and the ability of such stand alone housing to be removed from the site. 90-1 Environmental Services Division, NSCC C/- Alison Private Bay 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Geddes

Allow minor residential units if section size is large – e.g. 600, 700 or 800 sqm. 94-1 F Farzad PO Box 36 504, Northcote North Shore City Encourage the development of minor residential units by keeping current controls, reducing development contributions & rates. 95-1 Steve Finnemore 9 Bulwer Street, Devonport North Shore City Support the deletion of provision for minor residential, particularly in the Res 3 zone. 100-1 Ray Gatland 14 Tainui Road, Devonport North Shore City That provision for minor residential units remain in the District Plan. 103-1 Cameron Gilmour and Joanna Wood 28 Watea Road, Torbay North Shore City Do not delete provision for minor residential units; or 104-1 Rosemary Gilmour 28 Shelter Road, North Shore City Change the provision to allow minor residential units on sections of a minimum size e.g. 700 sqm or larger. 104-2 Rosemary Gilmour 28 Shelter Road, North Shore City Support proposed plan changes as it relates to the Greenhithe Structure Plan zone, particularly the deletion of minor residential units. 111-1 Greenhithe Residents, Ratepayers and Community PO Box 27, Greenhithe North Shore City Hall Assoc. Inc.

Do not amend rules relating to minor residential units – leave them as was before Plan Change 17.

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units 115-1 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 122-1 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City 134-1 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City 138-1 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 159-1 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City 160-1 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose temporary kitchens, which then need to be removed. 116-2 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Remove changes to minor residential units. 125-1 Melissa He 54 Porritt Aveneue, North Shore City Retain minor residential units. 126-1 Ewen Henderson 254 Beach Road, North Shore City 163-1 Ivy Kong 95B Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City Modify development controls. 126-2 Ewen Henderson 254 Beach Road, North Shore City Oppose deleting provision for minor residential units. 127-1 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington 149-1 E A Jones 41 Hitchcock Crescent, Paremoremo North Shore City If provision is made for a second kitchen sink or dishwashing facility, it should not be restricted to dependant 127-2 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Oppose deletion of minor residential units – leave the provision as is or eliminate the provision entirely. 129-3 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Make provision for minor residential units in all the residential zones. 130-1 Deirdre Horwood 115 Kaipara Flats Road, Warkworth Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to the removal of minor residential units. 135-2 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Oppose the elimination of minor residential units. 136-2 Keith S Humphries 5H's Design Studio Ltd 81A Ngataringa Road, Devonport North Shore City Lot sizes be increased so that minor residential units have more space between them and the neighbouring dwelling. 139-1 Ideal Buildings C/- Alex Styles PO Box 11243, Ellerslie North Shore City The size of minor residential units be reduced to 65 sqm or 60 sqm. 139-2 Ideal Buildings C/- Alex Styles PO Box 11243, Ellerslie North Shore City Increase fines for illegal units. 139-3 Ideal Buildings C/- Alex Styles PO Box 11243, Ellerslie North Shore City Restrict the development of other outbuildings on a site where a minor residential unit is to be built. 139-4 Ideal Buildings C/- Alex Styles PO Box 11243, Ellerslie North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 146-8 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City Support changes to minor residential units. 155-3 Richard Kane 63 Monarch Avenue, Hillcrest North Shore City Allow minor residential units to be attached to the main house. 162-1 Charles Kong 14 City View Terrace, Birkenhead North Shore City Remove minor residential units from the Res 1 zone but retain them in all other zones. 164-1 Shane Kuzmanic 20 Widdison Place, Albany Auckland Amend District Plan to make minor residential units a limited discretionary activity with appropriate amenity and servicing assessment criteria. 167-2 Lane Associates Ltd Cherie Lane 18 Domain Street, Devonport North Shore City Retain minor residential units as a controlled activity. 186-1 Lindsay and Lynda Mackie 67 Seacliffe Aveneue, Belmont North Shore City Remove or substantially revise proposal to delete provision for minor residential units. 193-1 Gordon Martinsen PO Box 30 405, Birkenhead North Shore City Retain provision for minor residential units, leave District Plan as it is 194-1 Dennis John Massey PO Box 38, Claris Great Barrier Island Home & income may be built on sections no less than 650 sqm provided that the total number of bedrooms doesn’t exceed four, the total number of living areas and garaging does not exceed three, the number of occupiers subject to annual inspection. 196-1 Katherine Masters 5 Summerfield Lane, Albany North Shore City

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units Opposed deletion of minor residential units. 197-1 M W McCarthy 47A Tirotui Crecent, Westmere Auckland Do not change existing District Plan rules relating to minor residential units. 198-1 Joanne McClean 18 Merton Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Withdraw the proposed changes to minor residential units in total. 199-1 David McGuinness 28 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City Require resource consent applications a s controlled activity where minor residential unit is integrated within the main dwellings and a limited discretionary activity where minor residential units of 70 sqm are provided as a separate 201-12 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 201-14 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Retain existing plan controls for minor residential units. 203-1 Edward Thomas McMillan PO Box 34 862, Birkenhead North Shore City Support proposed changes to minor residential units but amend definition of residential unit to clearly define a second kitchen: “ a second kitchen means: a second separate food storage, preparing cooking area and facilities (including dishwashing) not integrally part of the principal kitchen”. 204-2 Michael and Janet McQuillan 18E Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Amend 16.3.5.4 – no removal of kitchen. 213-1 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design 109 Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, RD3 Rodney District Amend 16.5.1 – Minor dwelling permitted if site over 1000 sqm. 213-2 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design 109 Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, RD3 Rodney District Oppose requirement to remove kitchen facility once dependant relatives are no longer accommodated. 217-1 Anthony Michael Nash 36 Mayall Avenue, Beach Haven Auckland Permit minor residential units as a permitted activity on suitably sized sites – sites 125% but less than 200% the minimum size for the zone 219-1 Roger Nelson 22 Acacia Road, Browns Bay North Shore City That the proposal to do away with the minor residential units be changed to allow dwellings of up to 70 sqm floor area as separate units for any residential purpose, but only on sites of not less than 600 sqm, provided they meet the normal bulk and location requirements within a delineated area. The proposal providing for second kitchens in existing dwellings should remain. 221-2 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Oppose the deletion of minor residential units, unless the proposed provisions are amended and clarified to provide for a wide range circumstances relating to dependant relatives such as the circumstances of the submitter. 222-1 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell PO Box 91250, Auckland Oppose the deletion of minor residential units unless objectives, policies, rules and consequential amendments are made as necessary to enable accommodation for dependant relatives to be created in new or existing ancillary buildings where there are heritage constraints to providing such accommodation in association with the main 222-2 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell PO Box 91250, Auckland Support the effective deletion of a requirement to pay reserve contributions in relation to accommodating relatives. 222-3 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell PO Box 91250, Auckland Retain provision for minor residential units, including home and income options. 223-1 Marilyn Nicholls 3 Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose change to delete provision for minor residential units. 224-1 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Make a second kitchen sink or dishwashing facility in a residential unit for dependant relatives a controlled activity and amend the definition of residential unit accordingly. 225-1 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Add a definition of dependant relative: “Dependant relative means a person or person related to the occupants of the principal residential unit by blood, marriage, civil union, or adoption and who is/are physically, mentally or financially reliant for support”. 225-2 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Give up on taking out kitchens. 227-2 Evelyn Norton 30 Rosecamp Road, Beach Haven North Shore City Oppose changes to minor residential units and allowing a 2nd kitchen and dishwashing facility for dependant 230-1 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Oppose deleting provision for minor residential units – leave existing provisions.

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units 234-1 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City The status quo should remain for minor residential units. 237-2 I Parker 331/b Beach Road, Campbells Bay North Shore City Modify the provision for minor residential units rather than deleting them entirely, so that minor residential units would be a permitted activity in the Res 1 zone and also on any site of 1200 sqm or more in any residential zone, 238-1 Kristen Parlane 34 Roland Road, Greenhithe North Shore City Allow minor residential units for homeowners who have lived on a property for a significant time and had previously intended to develop their property when the timing was right. 241-2 Francis Payne 97 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill North Shore City Decline deletion of minor residential units. 244-1 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 53 Coronation Road, Hillcrest North Shore City Do not amend rules for minor residential units – leave as was before Plan Change 17. 249-1 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-1 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Make no changes to minor residential units, & completely remove the requirement to remove sink & dishwashing facility once dependant relatives move on. 258-1 L M Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 259-1 P J Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Make no changes to minor residential units, & oppose the requirement to remove sink & dishwashing facility once dependant relatives move on. 260-1 Steven W Reddington 2 Enfield Road, Napier Oppose changes to minor residential units, allowing for additional kitchens in a dwelling would only be abused once the dependent relative was no longer there. If the land area is covering a square metre coverage of two single dwelling areas and does not exceed the permeable area for the site, then this would be effective and have less impact on the neighbouring community. 261-1 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City The refusal of Plan Change 17 proposed changes and retention of the minor residential unit provisions and development controls. 265-6(a) Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265-6(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed changes to Sections 16.6.2.4, 16.6.3 and 16.6.3.1 and retain as is. 265-9(a) Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265-9(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants The retention of the current definition of Residential Unit. 265-23(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants An additional control (for minor residential units) could be added as follows:A min lot size of 650 sqm for sites able to be developed with a minor residential unit, and the current minor residential unit size could be reduced to 65sqm of floor area, excluding garaging. 265-24(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed changes to Sections 17.8.3.1, 17.7.1, 17.8.3, 17A.4.1, 17A.5.2.3, 17A.5.4 and retain as they currently are. 265-25(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants Replace the definition of Residential Unit with the following or similar: "Means any self-contained residence, housing one or more people as a single household. The residence must have facilities that will allow the residence to accommodate no more than a single household”. The test to determine that the dwelling has the facilities for no more than one household are as follows: 1. The residence contains typically rooms that provide for activities that are associated with bedroom(s), water closet, laundry, kitchen and an area for daytime activities. 2. The residence has a single focal point of entry, food preparation area, laundry facility and a single day time activity area 9combination of lounge, rumpus and a dining room). 3. All parts of the residence living areas are internally connected and designed to be used by a single household. 4. Is not capable of being used by two households either independently or with a shared facility. 265-26(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants Oppose deletion of minor residential units from the District Plan. 275-1 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Allow minor residential units as a permitted activity in all residential zones by increasing the minimum net site area required for a minor residential unit. 286-1 Rob Sherrell 11 Tudor Street, Devonport North Shore City Decline the deletion of minor residential units. 290-1 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates PO Box 68-217, Newton Auckland Minor residential units should be allowed for all residential units (sites) in NSC. 300-1 Peter Stapleton 25 Mahara Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Leave Rule 16.6.3.1 unchanged. – Minor residential units

Topic 2 Minor Residential Units 302-4 Roger Steele 1 Stanley Point Road, Devonport North Shore City Rule 16.3.5 to include minor residential units as a permitted activity. 303-1 Mr Craig Stevens 10 Hamilton Place, Glenfield North Shore City Allow minor residential units to continue in the present form but enforce existing controls more rigorously. 316-1 Ross Douglas Thurlow PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Minor residential units are a permitted activity in a residential zone up to 50 sqm in gross floor area and are to be limited to a single level only. Minor residential units must be in strict accordance with the bulk and location, parking, manoeuvrability and access rules of the District Plan. 317-1 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Mark PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Hatten

Retain the right to erect a minor residential unit in the District Plan (and on 118 Eversleigh Rd). 319-1 Colleen Tonei 118 Eversleigh Road, Takapuna North Shore City Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of minor residential units. 320-1 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose removal of minor residential units. 329-1 Jacqui Vowles 37 Paramu Avenue, Birkdale Auckland Retain the objectives, policies, permitted use status, development rules, definition for minor residential units. 331-1 Mr Pancha Walecha C/- Hardacre Planning Ltd 53 Belfast Street, Hillsborough Auckland The modification of minor residential units rules to control the potential negative effects arising from this form of 331-2 Mr Pancha Walecha C/- Hardacre Planning Ltd 53 Belfast Street, Hillsborough Auckland Subsequent amendments and modifications to the Council’s Operative District Plan to give effect to the submission. 331-3 Mr Pancha Walecha C/- Hardacre Planning Ltd 53 Belfast Street, Hillsborough Auckland That the proposed change deleting the provision for minor residential units be confirmed as notified, or similar relief that meets our submission. 336-1 Alan Roy and Eileen Josephine Watson PO Box 340 304, Birkenhead North Shore City That the provision for a second kitchen in a residential unit be removed or provided for as a restricted discretionary activity, or as another class of activity, requiring a resource consent, along with the ability for the Council to impose conditions on a grant of consent or to refuse consent so that the council can exercise due and required control over this activity, with consequential amendments being made to the district plan to include assessment criteria that address the need and future removal of the second kitchen or similar relief that meets our submission. 336-2 Alan Roy and Eileen Josephine Watson PO Box 340 304, Birkenhead North Shore City That the Council ensure that existing agreements in relation to the removal of existing minor residential units and/or the ability to subdivide or dispose of them independently of the overall parent site, be maintained and enforced. 336-3 Alan Roy and Eileen Josephine Watson PO Box 340 304, Birkenhead North Shore City Minor residential units remain a permitted activity. Alternatively introduce a transitional stage whereby those developments that commenced before April 6 are processed under the criteria in the operative District Plan. 338-1 Vaughan Wenham C/- Thurlow Consulting PO Box 35 405, Browns Bay North Shore City Engineers & Surveyors Ltd

Minor residential units be allowed or permitted as a controlled activity. 347-1 Morris Wong 34 Weldene Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Approve application for a minor residential unit as a complying activity and any other applications that are in 348-1 Clive Richard Wood 12B Wicklam Lane, Albany North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 354-6 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Allow minor residential units to be built in all residential zones. 357-1 Zeta Property Trust PO Box 340093, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete the proposed changes in respect of Minor Household Units in their entirety. 367-1 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Provide for Minor Household Units, as defined, as Controlled Activities in all zones, with no Control Flexibility 367-2 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Amend the definition of Minor Household Units to limit the Gross Floor Area to 40m2 367-3 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Retain/reinstate requirements for outdoor living courts, service areas, and parking in respect of Minor Household Units, but remove ability for dispensation/relaxation of these controls through Control Flexibility 367-4 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Consequential amendments to other provisions to reflect these as necessary. 367-5 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City

Topic 3 Boarding Houses Support proposed changes to boarding houses. 14-4 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Agree with boarding house issue if it take up most of the section & is close to other buildings, otherwise change is not necessary. 83-2 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Do not believe Council can limit the numbers in a boardinghouse. 116-3 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Oppose reducing the threshold for when resource consent is required for boardinghouses & residential care centres. 127-3 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Support the changes to boardinghouses. 145-1 Alan Lester 130 Exmouth Road, Northcote North Shore City Do not change existing District Plan rules relating to boardinghouse definition. 198-6 Joanne McClean 18 Merton Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Support changes to boarding houses to keep them & student accommodation under control to preserve a pleasant suburban environment. 212-1 M Morgan and M Barbara 134 Exmouth Road, Northcote North Shore City If a house has a certain number of bedrooms, then property owner should be allow to let people sleep in those bedrooms. If boardinghouses are going to be defined by the number of people living there, a reasonable number should be 10-12, not 6. 224-2 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Retain the threshold for boardinghouses at its current level: or 226-1 North Shore Housing Trust C/- Teresa Smeed Mary Thomas Centre, 3 Gibbons Road Takapuna North Shore City Separate the activity table to recognise the difference between a boardinghouse and residential care or homes for those with special needs. 226-2 North Shore Housing Trust C/- Teresa Smeed Mary Thomas Centre, 3 Gibbons Road Takapuna North Shore City No objection to changes to boarding houses. 230-2 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

For boarding houses, parents, children and close family members living together be regarded as a normal household and additional paying members of the household be counted separately. 248-1 Katie Pool Unique NZ C/- Student Advisor PO Box 35-212, Browns Bay North Shore City Agree with proposed change to boardinghouse definition. 275-2 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Reduce the threshold for resource consent for boarding houses from the proposed 6 to 5 people. 324-1 Graham D Turner PO Box 302 175 , North Harbour North Shore City Set the permitted number of people for a boarding house at 1-2 but without reference to household family members (which should include parents, children, and grandparents). 325-1 Angela Oliver Unique New Zealand C/- Director PO Box 35 212, Browns Bay North Shore City Topic 4 Coastal Conservation - Foreshore Yard Support the provisions pertaining to stormwater control for the CCA & foreshore yards. 8-2 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Amend the proposed plan change to retain discretion in Section 8.4.1.4 over the method(s) used for stormwater treatment and disposal by inserting the following sentence after Design and Implementation of Site Works: "The method(s) used for stormwater treatment and disposal”. 12-1 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Private Bag 92 012, 0 Auckland Support proposed changes to coastal conservation area/foreshore yard. 14-5 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete all new references to stormwater and associated controls from Plan Change 17. 62-1 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd PO Box 300-456, Albany North Shore City Prepare and notify a separate Plan Change to address the issue of stormwater. 62-2 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd PO Box 300-456, Albany North Shore City Such other additional or consequential relief to achieve consistency with the above and to satisfy the concerns of the submitter. 62-3 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd PO Box 300-456, Albany North Shore City No houses should be allowed within 50m of lower cliffs & 100m for very high cliffs. 83-3 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Support proposed changes to 8.4 Coastal Conservation.

Topic 4 Coastal Conservation - Foreshore Yard 116-10 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Include a definition/explanation in the District Plan of stormwater infrastructure. Unseen pipes should not be subject to this assessment. 167-3 Lane Associates Ltd Cherie Lane 18 Domain Street, Devonport North Shore City Support changes to coastal conservation area. 224-3 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City No objections to stormwater works. 230-3 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Support activity status for stormwater works in the coastal conservation and foreshore yards. 269-2 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Agree with proposed change to activity status in coastal conservation/foreshore yard. 275-3 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Retain 8.4.1.4, 8.4.1.5 367-6 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Amend 8.4.1.1 to read as follows: "Buidlings and structures in the Coastal Conservation Area that do not require stormwater infrastructure shall be Controlled Activities." 367-7 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Amend 8.4.1.3 to read as follows: "All stormwater infrastructure, including that required for buildings and structures, in the Coastal Conservation Area shall be a Limited Discretionary Activity. 367-8 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Topic 5 Landform, Vegetation, Landscaping Oppose change to landform, vegetation & landscaping. 14-6 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete bullet point 2 in 16.7.2 which reads: “ excavations and retaining walls/structures should generally be incorporated within the building footprint”. 21-2 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Reword bullet points 3 & 4 in 16.7.2 as follows (or similar wording): Existing mature trees of a form and species appropriate to the built environment and native bush not located within the shape factor as described in Rule 9.4.5.9 or the site access should be incorporated into the site and landscape design. Areas of native bush and natural watercourses not located within the shape factor as described in Rule 9.4.5.9 or the site access should be retained and/or not compromised in an unmitigated manner by the development in terms of 21-3 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland The additional assessment criteria for landform, vegetation and landscaping at Rule 16.7.2 should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns and in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-5 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-2 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Oppose changes to 16.7.2 Assessment Criteria. Status quo be retained. 26-3 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City That the requirement in 16.7.2. Assessment Criteria that retaining walls/structures should generally be incorporated within the building footprint be deleted. 26-8 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Delete the proposed additional assessment criteria for landform, vegetation & landscaping. 36-2 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Oppose assessment criteria relating to landform, vegetation & landscaping – do not create more barriers for people trying to improve their land. 39-4 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Clarify that the new assessment criteria relating to landform, vegetation & landscaping do not apply to the Res 3 zone, or delete them. 57-8 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City Oppose excavations and retaining walls/structures generally incorporated within the building footprint – current excavation controls remain in place, or a volume control be introduced instead of/in conjunction with the area control. 72-1 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Landform, vegetation & landscaping criteria – okay in moderation. 83-4 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City

Topic 5 Landform, Vegetation, Landscaping Agree it is important to keep trees & plants but object to Council telling me what landscaping I have to provide – assessment criteria landform, vegetation & landscaping. 116-4 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to the addition of Plan Change 1 assessment criteria relating to all residential zones. 135-3 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland That the proposed building design and site layout control proposed in all zones be modified to apply only to built zones. Landscaping requirements be added for all developments. 221-5 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Support changes to landform, vegetation & landscaping. 224-4 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Support changes to assessment criteria – landform, vegetation & assessment criteria. 230-4 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Oppose change to assessment criteria – landform, vegetation & landscaping – leave as existing. 234-2 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Support change to landform, vegetation & landscaping. 261-3 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Support new assessment criteria in all zones for landform, vegetation & landscaping. 269-3 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Agree with proposed change to landform, vegetation & landscaping criteria. 275-4 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones Retain the status quo - existing zones and lot sizes; or 3-1 Everard Allison 1 Hamana Street, Devonport North Shore City Introduce additional zones with a graduated lot sizes reflecting land values; or 3-2 Everard Allison 1 Hamana Street, Devonport North Shore City Introduce a 350 sqm lot size for vacant sites, both for new land developments and existing with the original dwelling removed and 450 sqm lot size for infill sites where the original dwelling is retained. 3-3 Everard Allison 1 Hamana Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose the proposed change to combine Res 4A & 4B zones and increasing minimum lot size to 450 sqm 4-1 Allison Architects C/- D E R Allison PO Box 9364, Newmarket Auckland Retain the status quo for Res 4 zones – no increase to the min lot size of 350 sqm under the Operative Plan. 6-1 Peter Anderson 52 Woodside Ave, Northcote North Shore City Oppose the increase in area for subdivision from 350 sqm to 450 sqm. 7-1 Vaughan Anderson PO Box 40-246, Glenfield North Shore City That the savings clause for minimum lot sizes in the Res 4A & 4B zones to read: “or any residential unit lawfully established between Oct 1994 and 6 April 2006”. 8-4 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City That the Res 4A zone remains unchanged. 9-1 David Anstiss 3 Maleme Avenue, Belmont North Shore City Leave the existing Res 4A & 4B zones as it is. 11-2 Angela Ashby 39 Compton Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 17-2 BCM NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman PO Box 303 162, North Harbour North Shore City 19-2 Beem Holdings Ltd Deirdrie McKenna c/- 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 23-2 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 38-2 Bruce Bushett 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 91-2 Eta Property Trust 23-25 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 96-2 Chris Fischer 16 Fernlea Rise, Glenfield North Shore City 101-2 Anna Gibb 36A Rothesay Bay Road, North Shore City 102-2 John Gibb 36A Rothesay Bay Road, North Shore City 105-2 GMP Investments GNA, GNA GNA 106-2 Adam Gower GMP Investments 8 Hiwihau Place, Glenfield North Shore City 107-2 Donna Gower GMP Investments GNA, GNA GNA 113-2 Marilyn Hamlyn 6 Santiago Place, Glenfield North Shore City 114-2 Paul Hamlyn Kokiri Developments GNA, GNA GNA 123-2 Richard Hayes 93B Island Bay Road, North Shore City

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 143-2 Nicole James 50 Rosecamp Road, Birkdale North Shore City 150-2 Sharlene Jones 20 Stonedge Lane, Albany North Shore City 151-2 Ty Jones 20 Stonedge Lane, Albany North Shore City 153-2 JWL Investments Ltd 9 Crown Hill Close, Milford North Shore City 156-2 Grant Kearney 13 Poplar Road, Stanmore Bay North Shore City 161-2 Kokiri Developments C/- Paul Hamlyn GNA, GNA GNA 172-2 Sean Levy PO Box 9173, Newmarket North Shore City 173-2 Nichole Lewis 6 Thelma Crescent, Torbay North Shore City 177-2 Christine Lim 13 Hogarth Rise, West Harbour North Shore City 178-2 Robert Lochore Lochore's Real Estate 96 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill North Shore City 187-2 David Maconaghie PO Box 34 072, Birkenhead North Shore City 200-2 Deirdre McKenna 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 206-2 Brian Mearns 87 Island Bay Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 242-2 Sarah Pearce 2/662 East Coast Road, Browns Bay North Shore City 246-2 Adam Pink-Martin PO Box 34 0093, Birkenhead North Shore City 247-2 Shona Pink-Martin 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 264-2 Risto NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman GNA, GNA GNA 270-2 Herb Rutley 110 Wade River Road, Whangaparaoa Auckland 271-2 Stuart Rutley 110 Wade River Road, Whangaparaoa Auckland 277-2 Matt Salmond GNA, GNA GNA 279-2 Leighton Sauni 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 284-2 Sharlene Jones Sharty Ltd 33 Weetman Drive, Browns Bay North Shore City 285-2 Ty Jones Sharty Ltd 1/109 Athena Drive, Glenfield North Shore City 287-2 Donna Shields 11 Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 288-2 Scott Shields 11 Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 296-2 Tim Smith 35 Manawa Road, 0 Auckland 301-2 Shari Stapleton 25 Mahara Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City 304-2 Ian Stewart 237 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby Auckland 305-2 Mark Stewart 10 Blundell Place, Birkenhead North Shore City 306-2 S M Stodart 24 Makepiece Place, Birkenhead North Shore City 312-2 Darren Taylor 41 Postman Road, Albany North Shore City 321-2 Christina M Trinnaman 134D Rangatira Road, Beach Haven North Shore City 322-2 Stuart Robert Trinnaman 134D Rangatira Road, Beach Haven North Shore City 337-2 Julie Waymouth 9A Hanlon Crescent, Devonport North Shore City 340-2 David Whitburn Fuzo PO Box 74-582, Market Road Auckland 349-2 Brad Worthington 33 Waiake Street, Torbay North Shore City 350-2 Merrilyn Joy Worthington 15 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City 351-2 Rex Worthington 15 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City Maintain the distinction between Res 4A and 4B zones and amend subdivision standards to allow for the total redevelopment of sites subject to development proposals meeting assessment criteria designed to safeguard urban cohesion and amenity values. This could be achieved by amending Proposed Plan Change 17 to: provide for total site redevelopment as a discretionary activity subject to appropriate assessment criteria safeguarding urban amenity and cohesion; setting a min lot size for infill development in both Res zones of 450 sqm; setting a min lot size for total site redevelopment in the Res 4A zone of 350 sqm; and setting a min lot size for total site redevelopment in the Res 4B zone of 400 sqm. 12-3 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Private Bag 92 012, 0 Auckland Amend proposed Plan Change 17 to include an explicit policy commitment to offsetting the reduced contribution of infill development to meeting demand for accommodation in North Shore City implicit in the proposed plan change, consistent with the relief sought by ARC in its submission to NSCC’s Proposed Plan Change 12. This amendment should refer to the promotion of more intensive development in specified high-density centres and corridors via the use of min densities or similar mechanisms. This would give some certainty that the plan change would, if enacted, have a practical effect that is consistent with the provisions and principles of the ARPS, Proposed Change 6 to the 12-4 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Private Bag 92 012, 0 Auckland Oppose change to min lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones. Maintain Res 4A & 4B as they already have different densities developing for 13 years. Delete the three or more units at 400 in Res 4B so that min site is 450 in that zone. Res 4A min 350 sqm. 14-7 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Remove delineated area and 20 sqm rule – this reduces requirement for landuse consents. 14-8 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Reinstate the deleted Res 4A & 4B provisions and the amended density provisions should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-6 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-3 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The structure plan provisions at Rule 9.4.5.11 should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter.

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 23-7 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-4 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Communal entrance strip provision should be reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-8 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-5 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Control flexibility provisions for reducing the min delineated area in Res 4B zone should be reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-9 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The assessment criteria at Rule 16.7.2(e)(iv) and (e)(v) should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-10 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-7 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

That the delineated area include 20 sqm of the communal entrance strip. 26-6 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City That all references to the changes in density provision for the Res 4 zone be deleted. 26-7 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Delete proposed changes to minimum lot size and area in Res 4 zone. 28-2 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 85-2 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-2 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-2 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-2 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-2 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-2 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-2 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-2 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-2 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-2 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-2 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-2 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-2 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Maintain the existing site area and density controls for the Res 4A & 4B zones and all related provisions to retain provision for a minimum lot size of 350 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B zones; or 33-2 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

If Council proceeds with Plan Change to combine Res 4A & 4B zone, the following amendments to Activity Table 16.2 and Rule 16.6.2.3 Density (Table 16.6) are requested: Table16.2 Res units, 2-5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 450 sqm in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – controlled; Res units, 2-5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 400 sqm, in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – limited discretionary; Res units, 2-5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 350 sqm, in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – discretionary; Res units, exceeding 5 per site where each unit has a min delineated area of 400 sqm, in accordance with rule 16.6.2.3 Density – discretionary; Table 16.6 Density – Res 4 Min net site area per residential unit – 450sqm, provided that: 2-5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a limited discretionary activity; 2-5units at 350 sqm per unit as a discretionary activity; More than 5 units at 400 sqm per unit as a discretionary activity.

33-3 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-12 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-12 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-12 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 201-5 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 354-12 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief in 33.3, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities. 33-4 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 33-5 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Maintain the existing site area and density controls for the Res 4A & 4B zones and all related provisions to retain provision for a minimum lot size of 350 sqm in Res 4A and 400 sqm in Res 4B zones. 34-11 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-11 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-11 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 201-4 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 354-11 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief in 34.12, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities. 34-13 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 34-14 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief in 35.12, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities. 35-13 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 35-14 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd

Combine Res 4A & 4B but allow for minimum lot size of 350 sqm. 40-1 David Cairn 310 Beach Road, Campbells Bay North Shore City 41-1 Dee Cairn 310 Beach Road, Campbells Bay North Shore City 42-1 Edwin Percival Cairn 312 Beach Road, Campbells Bay North Shore City 43-1 Sharron Joy Cairn 312 Beach Road, Campbells Bay North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 4 min lot sizes. 44-3 Murray Calder 28a Harley Road, Takapuna North Shore City Maintain existing lot sizes in the Res 4 zone – oppose changes. 45-1 Don Campbell 94 Jutland Road, Takapuna North Shore City Delete proposed changes to min lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones. 46-2 P M Campbell PO Box 33398, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose the increase in lot size from 350 sqm to 450 sqm. 50-1 Chat Investments Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City 51-1 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Oppose changes to minimum lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones and for 24 Holland Road, Northcote. 53-1 Perry Chiang and Angela Chiang idc Consultants PO Box 91421, Auckland Mail Centre Auckland C/- Ivan Siu

Retain the current Res 4A rules, which allow subdivision and development down to 350 sqm. 55-1 Kwang Yong Chung 22 Longwood Place, Forrest Hill North Shore City Oppose the increase in the minimum lot size to 450 sqm, existing rules to remain in force. 56-1 Sarah Jane Mair City View Properties Ltd PO Box 331-483, Takapuna North Shore City Maintain Res 4A lot sizes down to 350 sqm. 60-1 Alan Collie ABC Properties Ltd 1A Aberdeen Road, Castor Bay North Shore City Provide for more intensive developments in the Res 4 zone as a discretionary activity, with a comprehensive set of assessment criteria seeking a high amenity outcome. Each development should include a design statement of support from a qualified urban designer & a registered architect. There should be no minimum site size or density, and general residential development controls should not apply. 62-4 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd PO Box 300-456, Albany North Shore City

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones Such other additional or consequential relief as is necessary to achieve consistency with the submission and to satisfy the concerns of the submitter. 62-5 Tim Sinclair Cornerstone Group Ltd PO Box 300-456, Albany North Shore City Delete the blanket requirement for minimum site area of 450 sqm. 63-2 Colin Maxwell Couch 2 Garmons Way, Milford North Shore City Oppose changes to min lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones – operative provisions for Res 4A zone should be reinstated and the proposed amendment deleted. 67-2 Dennis Crampsie 2 Holiday Road, Milford North Shore City Retain the ability for infill housing at smaller lots sizes (350 & 400 sqm) in Res 4A & 4B zones but require existing buildings to be removed and place restrictions on subdivision. 68-1 Trevor Cullen 38 Cranston Street, Browns Bay North Shore City Delete the provision for up to 20 sqm of common access to be included in the delineated area. 68-2 Trevor Cullen 38 Cranston Street, Browns Bay North Shore City Delete any requirement to obtain a land use for an additional dwelling as a prerequisite to subdivision. 68-3 Trevor Cullen 38 Cranston Street, Browns Bay North Shore City Leave the existing Res 4A & 4B zone as is. 76-2 Garry Denley 122 Rangatira Road, Birkenhead North Shore City The current controls have been developed with public consultation and produce an acceptable level of development within the residential zones. 79-1 M J Dobbyn 88 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater North Shore City Current District Plan provides for a range of options to manage residential development in the city. Imposing further criteria is unnecessary & unreasonable. 79-3 M J Dobbyn 88 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater North Shore City Oppose the increase in lot size from 350 sqm to 450sqm. 80-1 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City No change to min lot size – Res 4A & 4B zones. 83-5 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Change the minim net site area Res 4A to 400 sqm as a controlled activity. 86-1 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd PO Box 36 124, Northcote North Shore City Allow the ability for 3 or more sites in Res 4B to be reduced in size to 400 sqm as at present but with non compliance with bulk and location rules being a non complying activity. 86-3 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd PO Box 36 124, Northcote North Shore City Retain existing density provisions. 88-2 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd PO Box 5164, Wellesley St Auckland 282-2 Igor Segroutes c/- Eclipse Group, PO Box 5164 Wellesley Street Auckland Leave Res 4A and 4B as they are at present – i.e. Res 4A a controlled activity to 350 sqm. 108-1 Kevin Grainger Precise Building Management Ltd 55 Parr Terrace, North Shore City Leave the minimum lot size in Res 4A & 4B unchanged. 109-2 Michael Grainger 32 William Souter Street, North Shore City Retain current provisions relating to minimum site area in Res 4A & 4B. 112-1 Guardian Developments C/- Barry Kaye Assoc Ltd 493 New North Road, Kingsland Auckland Delete reference to structure plans and ARC guidelines for subdivision of sites 5000 sqm or larger. 112-2 Guardian Developments C/- Barry Kaye Assoc Ltd 493 New North Road, Kingsland Auckland Amalgamate Res 4A & 4B and apply the current Res 4A rules of 450 sqm permitted, 2-5 unites at 350 sqm controlled activity and 6 or more units at 350 sqm as a discretionary activity. 115-2 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 134-2 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City 138-2 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 159-2 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City 160-2 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Min lot size in Res 4A & 4B of 450 sqm is not suitable. 400 sqm is still very reasonable. 116-5 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Do not agree with the proposal to increase min lot size to 450 sqm in Res 4A & 4B zones – 400 sqm is adequate in combination with other proposed controls on separation distance & visual privacy. 117-1 Simon Upton PO Box 33-12349, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose a blanket change to Res 4A & 4B zones. 118-1 Mark Harper 40 Castor Bay Road, North Shore City Combine Res 4A & 4B but allow a minimum lot size of 350 sqm.

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 119-1 Jeffrey Harries 2/20a Chivalry Road, Glenfield North Shore City 353-1 Natasha Yates 83 Roland Road, Greenhithe North Shore City Amalgamate Res 4A & 4B and apply the current Res 4A rules of 450 sqm permitted, 2-5 units at 350 sqm controlled activity and 6 or more units at 350 sqm as a discretionary activity. 122-2 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City Remove changes to Res 4A & 4B minimum net site area. 125-2 Melissa He 54 Porritt Aveneue, North Shore City Oppose increasing the required min site/lot areas for subdivision & development in Res 4A & 4B zones. 127-5 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Decline amendment to min lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones. Support the simplification of the Res 4 zone, but min site size be 350 sqm. 129-4 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Minimum lot sizes for Res 4A zone remain as specified in the Operative District Plan. 133-1 Doug Howard C/- Thurlow Consulting Engineers and PO Box 35 405, Browns Bay North Shore City Surveyors Ltd

Retain the existing minimum net site area per residential unit in the Res 4A zone at 350 sqm. 136-1 Keith S Humphries 5H's Design Studio Ltd 81A Ngataringa Road, Devonport North Shore City Cancel proposed change to Res 4A & 4B minimum lot sizes; or 140-2 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-2 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-2 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City Consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief in 146.12, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities. 146-13 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 146-14 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City Retain minimum lot size of 350 sqm in Res 4A zone with consent etc. 148-1 Colin Jones Jaycke Holdings Ltd PO Box 91830, AMC Auckland 152-1 Yvonne Jones 71 Raleigh Road, Northcote North Shore City Oppose increasing minimum site area for Res 4A & 4B. 149-2 E A Jones 41 Hitchcock Crescent, Paremoremo North Shore City Support changes to minimum lot size in Res 4A & 4B zones, but ensure rule has no flexibility. 155-2 Richard Kane 63 Monarch Avenue, Hillcrest North Shore City Reduce the minimum lot size in Res 4A & 4B from 450 sqm to 350 sqm. 162-2 Charles Kong 14 City View Terrace, Birkenhead North Shore City Retain Res 4A with a minimum net site area of 400 sqm and Res 4B with a minimum net site area of 450 sqm. 165-1 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates PO Box 302104, North Harbour North Shore City Oppose changes to densities for Res 4 zone – amend to Res 4A 2-5 units at 400 sqm as a controlled activity, Res 4B 3 or more units 450sqm as a discretionary activity. 165-2 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates PO Box 302104, North Harbour North Shore City Maintain present minimum lot sizes/density in the Res 4 zone – oppose changes. 174-1 Yuding Li 280A Lake Road, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to minimum lot sizes in Res 4A & 4B zones. 175-1 Amy Li 29 Raleigh Road, Northcote North Shore City Oppose changes to the minimum site area for subdivision to 450 sqm. 176-1 Sheng Li 89 Bruce Road, Glenfield North Shore City Retain min net site areas for the Res 4A & 4A zones at current rule. 179-2 Longyan Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St North Shore City 253-2 Pride Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St Auckland 339-2 Westlake Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St Auckland Retain a min net site area of 350 for the Res 4A zone and do not combine Res 4A & 4B into one zone. 182-1 Jim Luo 22 Normanton Street, Glenfield North Shore City Support increasing minimum lot size to 450 sqm. 183-1 Debbi Lyons 3 Tree Fern Trail, Campbells Bay North Shore City Retain existing min lot sizes in the Res 4 zone as controlled activities. 186-2 Lindsay and Lynda Mackie 67 Seacliffe Aveneue, Belmont North Shore City Oppose change that combines Res 4A & 4B zones and increases min net site area. 188-1 Sarah and Chris Maffey PO Box 386, Waiuku

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones Oppose assessment criteria requiring compatibility with established neighbourhood character. 188-2 Sarah and Chris Maffey PO Box 386, Waiuku Oppose restriction of lot size in Res 4 zone to 450 sqm. 191-2 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd PO Box 32021, Devonport North Shore City Remove or substantially revise proposal to remove 400 sqm zoning (Res 4 min site area). 193-2 Gordon Martinsen PO Box 30 405, Birkenhead North Shore City Intensification should be allowed as a discretionary activity where neighbouring properties have already been 195-1 Grant Massey 52 Holyoake Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Retain current rule relating to min site areas for Res 4 zone. 197-2 M W McCarthy 47A Tirotui Crecent, Westmere Auckland Do not change existing District Plan rules relating to minimum lot size for Res 4A & 4B. 198-2 Joanne McClean 18 Merton Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief in 201.5, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities. 201-6 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 201-7 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Combine the Res 4 subzones into a single Res 4 zone, which provides for sites with a minimum lot area of 450 sqm, reducible to a development density of 1 unit per 350 sqm where resource consent has been granted under Rule 202-1 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Increase the structure plan threshold in proposed Rule 9.4.5.1. to 2 ha. 202-2 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Delete the final three paragraphs under the heading “Explanation and Reasons” and replace with the following or similar: "The minimum lot size in the Res 4 zone has been set at 450 sqm, reducible to 350 sqm per dwelling provided resource consent for a development is first approved. This ensures the character and amenity of sites within the zone is compatible with the zone objective and a full assessment of effects has been carried out prior to development approval”. 202-3 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Have Tables 16.2 and 16.6 reflect a density of 350 sqm per unit, with 2-5 units per site provided for as a controlled activity and more than 5 units as discretionary activities. 202-4 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Delete provision 16.7.2 e) v). 202-5 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Oppose changes to min site area in Res 4 and associated policies and rules – withdraw proposed change; or 204-3 Michael and Janet McQuillan 18E Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Amend transition provisions date of 6 April 2006 to a later date, or 204-4 Michael and Janet McQuillan 18E Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Expand transition provisions to include those already exercising rights but not yet made formal applications. 204-5 Michael and Janet McQuillan 18E Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Approve subdivision in Res 4A zone with a minimum area of 350 sqm. 207-1 Ho Yuet Meng 19 Coroglen Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Allow quality infill on 350 sqm; or 209-1 Jonathan Michell 38 Eversleigh Road, Takapuna North Shore City Retain status quo for Res 4A & 4B zones 210-1 J E Mitchell 50 Woodside Aveneue, Northcote North Shore City Amend the exception clause for Res 4A & 4B to enable completion of landuse and subdivision process as if the plan change had not occurred. Must include parties who have applied for one but not yet applied for all necessary resource consents. 211-1 Alan Moore 14 Arrow Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City Oppose increase in lot size from 350 sqm to 450 sqm. 215-1 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City 216-1 Kuganasen Naidoo 11 William Gamble Drive, Albany North Shore City Oppose the proposed provisions relating to the consideration on new housing development in the Res 4A & 4B zones, including the proposed increase in the min net site area to 450 sqm – retain flexibility to develop land in accordance with present requirements. 220-2 New Zealand Defence Force HQ NZDF, Private Bag Wellington Attn: Director Estates Policy

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones That density limits and lot sizes should remain as in the current plan but that better outcomes can be achieved by tightening up the activity status and control flexibility of the bulk and location rules. 221-1 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Add rule to clarify how subdivisions of existing developments will be treated including conversion of cross leases. 221-8 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Oppose changes to min lot sizes in Res 4A & 4B zones. 224-5 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Add a clause to Rule 16.6.2.3 Density, Table 16.6 clarifying that a new dwelling on an existing lot of less than 450 sqm is a controlled activity. 225-3 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Toughen up on infill but allow for them on their merits. 227-1 Evelyn Norton 30 Rosecamp Road, Beach Haven North Shore City Oppose change to Res 4A & 4B. Look at strengthening the assessment criteria. 230-5 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Oppose changes to min lot size Res 4A & 4B. 232-2 Alex Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose change to min lot size for Res 4A & 4B. 234-3 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Allow min lot size in Res 4A & 4B to be reduced to 300 sqm to allow reasonable infill and use of land. 234-4 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Minimum lot size for Res 4 A zone be 400 sqm. 235-1 Tony and Delwyn Palmer 28 Dallinghoe Crescent, Milford North Shore City The status quo should remain for subdivision. 237-1 I Parker 331/b Beach Road, Campbells Bay North Shore City Leave Res 4A & 4B zones as is. 239-2 Christopher Alan Pattison 872 Beach Road, Waiake North Shore City The rules allowing subdivision down to 350 sqm in the Res 4A & 4B zones be reinstated. 240-1 John S Paull 22 Rawene Avenue, Westmere Auckland Allow subdivision less than 450 sqm to homeowners who have lived on a property for a significant time and had previously intended to develop their property when the timing was right. 241-1 Francis Payne 97 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill North Shore City Decline changes to Res 4 zones. 244-2 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 53 Coronation Road, Hillcrest North Shore City Oppose the increase in min lot size in Res 4A & 4B – an increase to 375 sqm along with enforcement of former criteria would meet concerns. 245-1 Suzanne and Gary Pincevich 1 Lake Road, Northcote North Shore City Amalgamate Res 4A & 4B and apply the current Res 4A rules of 450 sqm permitted, 2-5 units at 350 controlled activity, 6 or more units at 350 sqm as a discretionary activity. 249-2 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-2 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Rescind proposed changes to the minimum lot sizes in Res 4A & 4B zones. 250-1 R M Post 84 Norwood Road, Bayswater North Shore City Oppose change to min size of 450 sqm. 254-1 Karen Radley C/- Peri Operative Dept 1st Floor, North Shore Hospital, Shakespeare Road Takapuna North Shore City

Allow min site area 350 sqm in Res 4 with resource consent to remain, with appropriate restrictions. 255-1 M A Radley 3 Tyne Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City Control flexibility provisions for reducing the minimum delineated area in Res 4B zone should be reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 256-6 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Leave lot size & resource consent requirements in Res 4A & 4B zones as per current plan. 257-1 Chris Reade 46 Francis Street, Takapuna North Shore City Make no changes to Res 4A & 4B zones. 258-2 L M Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 259-2 P J Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 260-2 Steven W Reddington 2 Enfield Road, Napier Support changes to min net site area in Res 4A & 4B zones. 261-4 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Include reference to building length control in 16.7.2 e (v) – Building Design & Site Layout criteria. 263-1 Brian Rickard 36 Ravenstone Place, Birkenhead North Shore City The refusal of Plan Change 17 provisions associated with min lot size – Res 4A & 4B. 265(a)-1 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma The retention of the current lot size provisions and development controls in the Res 4 zones. 265-5(a) Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma The refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.3. Housing Choice, and the retention of current provisions. 265(a)-7 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-7 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants

The refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.5.1 Determination of Activity Status and retain as is. 265(a)-8 Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma 265(c)-8 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants The refusal of the Plan Change 17 provisions and the retention of the current lot size provisions and development controls in the Res 4 zones. 265(b)-10 Mr CWR Ritsma The refusal of Plan Change 17 provisions and the retention of the current lot size provisions and development controls in the Res 4 zones. 265-11(c) Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed change to Section 9.4.5.4 that removes the min net site area of 350 sqm where the associated residential unit or units have been granted resource consent in accordance with Rule 16.5.1. 265-12(c) Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed changes to section 16.4.4 and retain as is. 265-13(c) Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.5.1 and Table 16.2 Res 4 Zone and retain the current Res 4A & 4B zones as they are currently. 265(c)-14 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.2.2.2 Delineated Area and the associated control flexibility and to retain the plan provisions as they currently are. 265(c)-15 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants The refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.6.2.3 Density and Table 16.6 and the retention of the current provisions. 265(c)-16 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants Refuse the proposed changes to the planning maps that propose to combine the 4A & 4B zones into a single 4 zone. Retain the current 4A & 4B residential zones. 265(c)-17 Mr RWS Ritsma - RDM Consultants Retain existing Res 4A & 4B in present form – do not adopt Plan Change 17. 266-1 Ann Robertson C/- 84 Patterson Ave, Mission Bay Auckland Provide for greenfields and brownfields development of up to 3 residential units as a permitted activity to a density of 1 dwelling per 350 sqm within the Residential 4 zone. 268-1 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland C/- Ian PO Box 47020, Ponsonby Auckland McManus

Provide for greenfields and brownfields development of more than 3 residential units as a controlled or limited discretionary activity to a density of 1 dwelling per 350 sqm within the Res 4 zone. 268-2 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland C/- Ian PO Box 47020, Ponsonby Auckland McManus

Provide a clear and unambiguous set of criteria for the assessment of greenfields and brownfields proposals to ensure they achieve a satisfactory level of amenity whilst providing a reasonable degree of certainty, to the satisfaction of the submitter. 268-3 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland C/- Ian PO Box 47020, Ponsonby Auckland McManus

Provide definitions for greenfield and brownfield developments that include large site developments where some existing buildings are proposed to be retained, to the satisfaction of the submitter. 268-4 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland C/- Ian PO Box 47020, Ponsonby Auckland McManus

Such other amendments or relief to other parts of the District Plan or Plan Change as are necessary as a consequence of the amendments sought in the submission. 268-5 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Auckland C/- Ian PO Box 47020, Ponsonby Auckland McManus

Support combining the Res 4A & 4B into one zone and minimum lot size 450 sqm.

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones 269-4 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Support minimum net site area of 450sqm. 272-1 Helen Ryan 8 Norwood Road, Bayswater North Shore City Oppose change in lot size for the new Res 4 zone of 450 sqm per site, prefer min lot size of 400 sqm and the provisions relating to delineated area of not more than 20 sqm of communal entrance strip to remain in place. 275-5 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Combine Res 4A & 4B zones but allow a minimum lot size of 350 sqm. 278-1 Melinda Sampson 98 Nigel Road, Browns Bay North Shore City Delete changes to the Res 4 zones. 290-2 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates PO Box 68-217, Newton Auckland Keep the current Res 4A & 4B zones and setting the min site area to 400 sqm in the Res 4A zone. 294-1 Gordon and Joy Smith 67 Gladstone Road, Northcote North Shore City Oppose proposed changes to Res 4A & 4B min lot size. 308-1 Suibin Su and Yuhong Luan idc Consultants C/- PO Box 91421, Auckland Mail Centre Auckland Ivan Siu

Retain existing minimum net site areas in Res 4A & 4B zones. 309-1 Su Suibin 14 Cunliffe Place, Glenfield North Shore City Increase the minimum net site area in Res 4A zone to 400 sqm, not 450 sqm. 310-1 Rong Tang and Li Lu 9 Purchas Road, Takapuna North Shore City Combine Res 4A & 4B zones but allow minimum lot size of 350 sqm. 313-1 Rob terBraak 9 Wilmington Place, Forrest Hill North Shore City 315-1 Warren D Thorburn 20 Beulah Avenue, Rothesay Bay North Shore City Return to the status quo for Res 4A & 4B zone min lot sizes. 316-2 Ross Douglas Thurlow PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City The min net site area is reduced to 350 sqm in the combined Res 4 zone. The density provisions of the District Plan area to provide a minimum net site area of 350 sqm for up to three units as a permitted activity. The density requirements are on an averaging basis and do not represent individual site areas. 317-2 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Mark PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Hatten

Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of Res 4A & 4B min lot sizes. 320-3 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 4A & 4B min lot sizes. 323-2 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 11 Garden Terrace, Devonport North Shore City Support a minimum lot size of 600 sqm for any zone rather than the 450 sqm proposed for Res 4A. 327-2 Marilyn, Joy and Michael VanDam 10 McDowell Crescent, Hillcrest North Shore City Have a minimum lot size/density of 400 sqm as in Auckland City. 328-1 Brian and Jean VanDerVorst 5 Rae Road, Castor Bay North Shore City Minimum lot sizes to remain at 350 sqm. 332-1 Steve Walker 4 Corunna Road, Milford North Shore City Oppose the changes to subdivision in the Res 4A zone. 334-1 Shaolian Wang 9 Rifle Range Road, RD1 Pukekohe South Auckland Continue to allow a 350 sqm min lot size for appropriate residential dwellings. 342-1 Anna Wills and Wills Family 65 Cameron Street, Onehunga Auckland Maintain a minimum lot size of 400 sqm in Res 4A (and 4B if combined). 343-1 B M Wilson and G Austin 9 Harrison Avenue, Belmont North Shore City Sections less than 400 sqm as is possible at present should be avoided as it is difficult to maintain green spaces & trees on such a small area. 343-2 B M Wilson and G Austin 9 Harrison Avenue, Belmont North Shore City Oppose changes to minimum lot sizes Res 4A & 4B. 352-1 Don Yang 36A Lyttleton Avenue, Forrest Hill North Shore City Consequential amendments to the plan to give effect to the relief in 354.12, including modifying Rule 9.4.5.4 and introducing a list of matters for discretion and assessment criteria for limited discretionary activities. 354-13 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 354-14 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Topic 6 Minimum lot sizes Res 4A and 4B Zones Oppose changes to min lot sizes. 356-4 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Keep existing Res 4A & 4B zones as they are. 357-2 Zeta Property Trust PO Box 340093, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete proposed changes to density in the Residential 4 zones. 367-9 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Retain, as additional policies, 16.6.4.4 policies 3 & 4. 367-10 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Retain, as amended, 16.6.2.2 Delineated Area, but delete Control Flexibility to all Development Controls. 367-11 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Delete proposed amendment to 16.7.2e) 367-12 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Topic 7 Intensive Residential Development Res 2A Zone Introduce a maximum building coverage rule of 30% within the Res 2B & 2C zones to support the current objectives and policies for these areas and the new provisions proposed by part 4 of the plan change. 8-3 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City The retention of terrace housing within the Res 2A zone as a discretionary activity, however with a more appropriate density standard of 1/1000 sqm. The other criteria of rule 16.7.3.7 should remain for terrace housing in this zone subject to the above density revision. 8-5 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Encourage the intensive residential development in the Res 2A zone by increasing the height of development, thereby ensuring the least amount of intrusion on the existing bush. 11-3 Angela Ashby 39 Compton Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 17-3 BCM NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman PO Box 303 162, North Harbour North Shore City 19-3 Beem Holdings Ltd Deirdrie McKenna c/- 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 38-3 Bruce Bushett 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 96-3 Chris Fischer 16 Fernlea Rise, Glenfield North Shore City 101-3 Anna Gibb 36A Rothesay Bay Road, North Shore City 102-3 John Gibb 36A Rothesay Bay Road, North Shore City 105-3 GMP Investments GNA, GNA GNA 106-3 Adam Gower GMP Investments 8 Hiwihau Place, Glenfield North Shore City 107-3 Donna Gower GMP Investments GNA, GNA GNA 113-3 Marilyn Hamlyn 6 Santiago Place, Glenfield North Shore City 114-3 Paul Hamlyn Kokiri Developments GNA, GNA GNA 123-3 Richard Hayes 93B Island Bay Road, North Shore City 143-3 Nicole James 50 Rosecamp Road, Birkdale North Shore City 150-3 Sharlene Jones 20 Stonedge Lane, Albany North Shore City 151-3 Ty Jones 20 Stonedge Lane, Albany North Shore City 153-3 JWL Investments Ltd 9 Crown Hill Close, Milford North Shore City 156-3 Grant Kearney 13 Poplar Road, Stanmore Bay North Shore City 161-3 Kokiri Developments C/- Paul Hamlyn GNA, GNA GNA 172-3 Sean Levy PO Box 9173, Newmarket North Shore City 173-3 Nichole Lewis 6 Thelma Crescent, Torbay North Shore City 178-3 Robert Lochore Lochore's Real Estate 96 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill North Shore City 187-3 David Maconaghie PO Box 34 072, Birkenhead North Shore City 200-3 Deirdre McKenna 18 Trias Road, Glenfield North Shore City 242-3 Sarah Pearce 2/662 East Coast Road, Browns Bay North Shore City 264-3 Risto NZ Ltd C/- Stuart Trinnaman GNA, GNA GNA 270-3 Herb Rutley 110 Wade River Road, Whangaparaoa Auckland 271-3 Stuart Rutley 110 Wade River Road, Whangaparaoa Auckland 277-3 Matt Salmond GNA, GNA GNA 284-3 Sharlene Jones Sharty Ltd 33 Weetman Drive, Browns Bay North Shore City 285-3 Ty Jones Sharty Ltd 1/109 Athena Drive, Glenfield North Shore City 287-3 Donna Shields 11 Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 288-3 Scott Shields 11 Moore Street, Hillcrest North Shore City 296-3 Tim Smith 35 Manawa Road, 0 Auckland 304-3 Ian Stewart 237 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby Auckland 305-3 Mark Stewart 10 Blundell Place, Birkenhead North Shore City 306-3 S M Stodart 24 Makepiece Place, Birkenhead North Shore City 312-3 Darren Taylor 41 Postman Road, Albany North Shore City 321-3 Christina M Trinnaman 134D Rangatira Road, Beach Haven North Shore City 322-3 Stuart Robert Trinnaman 134D Rangatira Road, Beach Haven North Shore City 337-3 Julie Waymouth 9A Hanlon Crescent, Devonport North Shore City 340-3 David Whitburn Fuzo PO Box 74-582, Market Road Auckland

Topic 7 Intensive Residential Development Res 2A Zone 349-3 Brad Worthington 33 Waiake Street, Torbay North Shore City 350-3 Merrilyn Joy Worthington 15 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City 351-3 Rex Worthington 15 Old Lake Road, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to intensive development in Res 2A. 14-11 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Abandon proposed changes to intensive residential development in the Res 2 zone. 21-4 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Allow for intensive dwellings in Res 2 zones, encourage it, rather than remove bush. 23-3 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 91-3 Eta Property Trust 23-25 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 177-3 Christine Lim 13 Hogarth Rise, West Harbour North Shore City 206-3 Brian Mearns 87 Island Bay Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 246-3 Adam Pink-Martin PO Box 34 0093, Birkenhead North Shore City 247-3 Shona Pink-Martin 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 279-3 Leighton Sauni 15 Verran Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 301-3 Shari Stapleton 25 Mahara Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City The provision for intensive residential development in Res 2A zone should be reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-11 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-8 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

That the proposal to delete provision for apartments/terrace houses in the Res 2 zone be withdrawn. 26-5 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Retain the ability for Apartment housing in the Res 2A zone at lower density with stricter controls. 68-4 Trevor Cullen 38 Cranston Street, Browns Bay North Shore City Encourage the use of intensive development in Res 2 zone. 76-3 Garry Denley 122 Rangatira Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Clustered housing near bush should be kept further away from the bush. 83-6 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Oppose deleting provision for intensive housing in Res 2 zone. 149-3 E A Jones 41 Hitchcock Crescent, Paremoremo North Shore City Support proposed changes to exclude apartments from Res 2 zones but add new rule to the effect that proposed changes take effect from 6 April 2006 for all new applications and earlier applications where the requirement for further information has resulted in the application being placed on hold. 204-1 Michael and Janet McQuillan 18E Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Support less intensive subdivision in Res 2 zone. 208-1 Victor Meyer 3/5 Glen Road, Browns Bay North Shore City Oppose changes to intensive housing in Res 2 zone. 224-6 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Oppose change to intensive residential development in Res 2 zone – leave as current. 234-5 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Encourage use of intensive development in Res 2 zone, so avoiding intrusion into bush and nature areas. 239-3 Christopher Alan Pattison 872 Beach Road, Waiake North Shore City Make no changes to provision for intensive housing in Res 2 zone. 258-3 L M Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 259-3 P J Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 260-3 Steven W Reddington 2 Enfield Road, Napier Support the deletion of provisions for intensive housing/apartments in Res 2 zone. 269-5 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Agree with proposed change to intensive residential development in the Res 2 zone. 275-6 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City The status quo remain for intensive forms of development within the Res 2 zone provided that there is strict enforcement for the preservation and enhancement of native bush areas. 317-4 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Mark PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Hatten

Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of intensive housing in Res 2 zone. 320-4 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City

Topic 7 Intensive Residential Development Res 2A Zone Allow for intensive dwellings in the Res 2 zones, encourage it rather than removing the bush. 357-3 Zeta Property Trust PO Box 340093, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete proposed changes. 367-13 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Topic 8 Separation Distances Between Units Exclude the proviso for delineated area boundaries, so to prevent that where a site owner provides their own neighbours consent the development within the side or rear yards can occur as a permitted development. 8-6 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to separation distances between units. 14-12 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Abandon proposed changes to the separation distance between units. 21-5 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland The amendments made to the yard control flexibility for infill development should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-12 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-9 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

That 16.6.1.5 Other Yards (a) and the reference to no control flexibility be deleted. 26-4 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Allow the reduction in separation distances between units to be considered on individual cases as a discretionary 27-1 Alan Brabant PO Box 35 447, Browns Bay North Shore City Delete proposed changes to separation distances between dwellings. 28-3 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 85-3 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-3 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-3 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-3 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-3 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-3 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-3 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-3 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-3 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-3 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-3 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-3 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-3 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Maintain the existing control flexibility provisions relating to Other Yards under clause 16.6.1.5. 33-6 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-9 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-9 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 354-9 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 33-7 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 34-10 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 35-10 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd

Oppose change to separation distance between units – subject measurements, urban design can do better. 39-3 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Oppose changes to separation distances. 44-4 Murray Calder 28a Harley Road, Takapuna North Shore City 140-6 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-6 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-6 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City

Topic 8 Separation Distances Between Units 232-3 Alex Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Delete proposed change to separation distance between units. 46-3 P M Campbell PO Box 33398, Takapuna North Shore City Proposed amendment to separation distance between units should be deleted. 67-3 Dennis Crampsie 2 Holiday Road, Milford North Shore City Separation of 6m between houses & units seems okay, especially higher density houses. 83-7 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Make all bulk and location rules binding with no ability to provide internal consents between sites on the property under development (non compliance to be non complying activity). 86-2 Don Eagleson Eagleson Kennaway Surveys Ltd PO Box 36 124, Northcote North Shore City Amend provision 16.6.1.5 Other Yards to clarify that clause (b) cannot be used by the owner of a site on which an infill is proposed to grant consent to themselves to reduce yards, but remains valid in relation to other yards that relate to the external boundaries of the site. 90-2 Environmental Services Division, NSCC C/- Alison Private Bay 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Geddes

Leave the reduction in separation distance between units as a limited discretionary activity with each property considered on its merits. 109-1 Michael Grainger 32 William Souter Street, North Shore City Do not amend separation distance between unit rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 115-3 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 122-3 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City 134-3 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City 138-3 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 159-3 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City 160-3 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Agree with proposed changes to separation distance between units. 117-2 Simon Upton PO Box 33-12349, Takapuna North Shore City Leave the ability to reduce separation distances between dwellings as it currently is with no change. 124-1 Steve Haywood 13A Arose Place, Forrest Hill North Shore City Support the Council in ensuring onsite amenity rules to be fully provided rather than allowing them to be set aside by a neighbours consent – but it is an issue of Council administrative practice & RMA. 129-6 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Do not introduce other technical obstacles such as changes to separation distances, visual privacy and private open space. 140-5 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-5 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-5 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City Agree with enforcing a 6m separation between dwellings & limiting the size of dwelling footprint on the site. 183-2 Debbi Lyons 3 Tree Fern Trail, Campbells Bay North Shore City Oppose the ability to decrease separation distance between houses. 188-3 Sarah and Chris Maffey PO Box 386, Waiuku Remove or substantially revise proposal to remove separation distance discretion. 193-3 Gordon Martinsen PO Box 30 405, Birkenhead North Shore City Do not change existing District Plan rules relating to separation distances. 198-3 Joanne McClean 18 Merton Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Amend 16.6.1.5 - Other Yards to retain control flexibility for separation between dwellings. 213-3 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design 109 Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, RD3 Rodney District To achieve greater flexibility within the delineated area, present yard requirements be reviewed. 221-3 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Oppose changes to separation distance between dwellings. 224-7 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Retain the ability to reduce other yards by a limited discretionary activity application where neighbours consent has not been obtained under rule 16.6.1.5(b), but add additional assessment criteria to 16.7.2(e) to provide greater guidance. The following criteria to be added: The building should not visually dominate adjoining properties.; Regard should be had to the relationship of the proposed building(s) and the use, design and location of buildings on the adjoining site(s); Whether suitable avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects is achieved through the design of the proposed building and in particular the design and location of windows, doors and decks”. 225-4 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City

Topic 8 Separation Distances Between Units Leave the privacy rules and check each proposal for impact on neighbours. 227-3 Evelyn Norton 30 Rosecamp Road, Beach Haven North Shore City Oppose change to separation distances between units – leave as current. 234-6 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Decline deleting the building separation clause. 244-3 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 53 Coronation Road, Hillcrest North Shore City Oppose a firm ruling on boundary distance and each site should be individually assessed to achieve the best benefit – separation distance should be modified where garages occupy part of this space, in which case the distance can be reduced to 2.4m. 245-2 Suzanne and Gary Pincevich 1 Lake Road, Northcote North Shore City Do not amend separation distances between units – leave as was before Plan Change 17. 249-3 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-3 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Rescind proposed changes to separation distances between units. 250-3 R M Post 84 Norwood Road, Bayswater North Shore City Delete the change to 16.6.1.5 – separation distance between units. 263-2 Brian Rickard 36 Ravenstone Place, Birkenhead North Shore City The refusal of Plan Change 17 provisions associated with separation distance between units. 265-2(a) Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma The refusal of the proposed changes to Section 16.6.1.5 Other Yards and the associated control flexibility and the retention of the current provisions. 265(c)-18 Mr RWS Ritsma -RDM Consultants Agree with proposed change to separation distance between units. 275-7 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City That a decrease in the separation distance between dwellings for infill housing remains a limited discretionary 283-1 Alan Shanahan Shanahan Architects Ltd 11 Hargreaves Street, Ponsonby Auckland Delete changes to the building separation clause. 290-4 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates PO Box 68-217, Newton Auckland Oppose changes to Rule 16.6.1.5 Other Yards to exclude infill development from control flexibility. 303-2 Mr Craig Stevens 10 Hamilton Place, Glenfield North Shore City Continue with the status quo in relation to separation distance between units. 316-3 Ross Douglas Thurlow PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City The proposed change in regard to separation distances between units is dismissed and that an alternative plan change is sought to remove the side and rear yard provisions of the plan. 317-3 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Mark PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Hatten

Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of separation distance between dwellings. 320-5 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Existing rules relating to separation distances to remain as they are. 332-2 Steve Walker 4 Corunna Road, Milford North Shore City Allow for a min distance between the living areas of residential dwellings. 342-2 Anna Wills and Wills Family 65 Cameron Street, Onehunga Auckland Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 354-10 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Oppose changes to separation distance between houses. 356-3 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Topic 9 Visual Privacy That the privacy rules for 16.6.2.6 c) Balconies & Decks be changed only to the extent that it applies to any balcony or deck situated adjacent to a living room, and that control flexibility remains for privacy rule infringements as a limited discretionary activity where neighbours consent is not forthcoming. 8-7 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to visual privacy. 14-13 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City 44-5 Murray Calder 28a Harley Road, Takapuna North Shore City 140-8 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-8 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-8 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City

Topic 9 Visual Privacy 224-8 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City 356-2 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Abandon proposed changes to visual privacy. 21-6 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland The amendments to Rule 16.7.2(e)(i) and the additional assessment criteria at Rule 16.7.2(e)(vi) should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-13 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-10 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The visual privacy amendments to Rule 16.6.2.6(a)-(c) should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-14 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-11 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The amendments to the visual privacy appendices should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-15 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-12 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The amendments to the definition of “principal living room” should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-16 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-13 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The definition for main glazing should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-17 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-14 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Support changes to visual privacy. Before construction of a building begins, a profile be erected of the new building to ascertain the effects on visual privacy and blocking of sunlight on properties in the vicinity. 25-1 Daphne Blackshaw 13a Penzance Road, Mairangi Bay North Shore City That the definition of Principal Living Room be retained as is. 26-9 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Delete proposed changes to visual privacy. 28-4 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 46-4 P M Campbell PO Box 33398, Takapuna North Shore City 85-4 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-4 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-4 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-4 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-4 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-4 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-4 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-4 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-4 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-4 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-4 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-4 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-4 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Delete all proposed changes to visual privacy. 36-3 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to visual privacy – don’t create more barriers to people trying to improve their site. 39-2 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Delete those aspects of Plan Change 17 relating to visual privacy and reduced control flexibility. 57-7 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City More restrictive provision on infill housing and visual privacy are supported. 70-1 Barbara Cuthbert 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose the requirement for the living room(s) main glazing to be located at least 10m from the nearest site boundary – 10m requirement not be implemented, that current visual privacy controls remain in place.

Topic 9 Visual Privacy 72-2 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Oppose changes to privacy rules. 76-4 Garry Denley 122 Rangatira Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Visual privacy - very steep section should not be built on, treat it on a case-by-case basis. 83-8 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Make no changes to Rule 16.6.2.6- visual privacy, retain limited discretionary activity status. 88-4 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd PO Box 5164, Wellesley St Auckland Visual privacy changes are amended to refer only to decks and balconies adjoining a living room in the building. The definition of living room be amended to read: “means a lounge or family room or such other similar room in a residential unit”. 90-3 Environmental Services Division, NSCC C/- Alison Private Bay 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Geddes

Do not amend visual privacy rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 115-4 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 122-4 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City 134-4 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City 138-4 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 159-4 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City 160-4 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Remove “particularly on smaller sites” from 16.7.2 e) i) – changes to visual privacy. 116-6 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Agree that visual privacy should be a consideration & developer should show they have made reasonable effort to mitigate any adverse effects – but not to the extent that existing property owners have a veto. 117-3 Simon Upton PO Box 33-12349, Takapuna North Shore City Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to visual privacy. 135-6 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Oppose changes in visual privacy from principal living room to living rooms. 136-3 Keith S Humphries 5H's Design Studio Ltd 81A Ngataringa Road, Devonport North Shore City Do not change existing District Plan rules relating to visual privacy. 198-4 Joanne McClean 18 Merton Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Delete visual privacy rules – 16.6.2.6 a), b) & c).. 206-5 Brian Mearns 87 Island Bay Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Visual privacy may need strengthening. 230-6 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Oppose change to visual privacy – leave as current. 234-7 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Do not amend visual privacy rules - leave as was before Plan Change 17. 249-4 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-4 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Support changes to visual privacy. 261-5 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Delete the words ‘of a smaller …, and” in 16.7.2 e(vi) – Building Design & Site Layout criteria. 263-3 Brian Rickard 36 Ravenstone Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Add ‘in relation to outdoor living space” to heading of 16.6.2.6 (c) – Visual Privacy. 263-4 Brian Rickard 36 Ravenstone Place, Birkenhead North Shore City The refusal of Plan Change 17 provisions associated with visual privacy. 265-3(a) Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma The refusal of the proposed changes to visual privacy provisions in Sections 16.7.2, 16.6.2.6, the definition of Principal Living Room in Section 21 and Section 16.6.2.4 Outdoor Living Space. Retain the provisions in these sections as they currently are. 265-19(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants Do not agree with proposed change to visual privacy. 275-8 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Make no changes to Rule 16.6.2.6 – Visual Privacy, retain unrestricted limited discretionary activity status for development control. 282-4 Igor Segroutes c/- Eclipse Group, PO Box 5164 Wellesley Street Auckland Delete changes to the visual privacy clause. 290-3 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates PO Box 68-217, Newton Auckland

Topic 9 Visual Privacy If any deck or balcony will compromise the privacy of neighbouring houses it not be allowed unless some form of screening is put in place e.g. trees. 298-1 Shirley Squire 14B Kapiti Place, Forrest Hill North Shore City All existing trees native or exotic which provide privacy to neighbouring houses although they haven’t reached the size or height to be protected under general tree protection rules that a covenant in perpetuity be registered against the titles of the lots to be created through subdivision and that the same criteria be registered when any trees are stipulated to be planted to provide privacy to neighbouring houses and any such trees be a mature size. 298-2 Shirley Squire 14B Kapiti Place, Forrest Hill North Shore City Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of visual privacy rules/criteria. 320-6 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Existing rules relating to visual privacy to remain as they are. 332-3 Steve Walker 4 Corunna Road, Milford North Shore City Topic 10 Private Outdoor Space - Outdoor Living Space That the gradient control clause only applies to that part of the site that is able to contain a 6m-diameter circle. 8-8 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to reduction in open spaces. 14-14 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City The provisions preventing outdoor living space control flexibility for infill housing should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-19 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-16 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Remove 16.6.2.4 (vi) gradient requirement for outdoor living space. 26-10 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Delete proposed changes to the ability to reduce the amount of private open space. 28-5 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 85-5 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-5 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-5 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-5 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-5 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-5 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-5 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-5 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-5 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-5 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-5 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-5 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-5 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Maintain the existing control flexibility provisions relating to outdoor living space under clause 16.6.2.4. 33-8 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-7 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-7 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-9 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 354-7 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 33-9 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 34-8 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 35-8 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd

Delete all proposed changes to private open space – specifically the reference to gradient and the clause relating to control flexibility. 36-4 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to private open space – don’t create more barriers & onerous legislation.

Topic 10 Private Outdoor Space - Outdoor Living Space 39-1 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Oppose the requirement for the main glazing of the living room(s) not to be within 10m of the outdoor living space of another unit. 72-3 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Oppose the requirement for no part of the balcony or deck to be located within a horizontal distance of 10m of an outdoor living space of another residential unit. 72-4 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Oppose the requirement for outdoor living spaces to have a gradient of no more than 1:5 – current outdoor living space controls remain in place. 72-5 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Oppose the non complying activity status for breach of area and dimension or outdoor living spaces. 72-6 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Reduction in open spaces – look & see option, depend on the size and location of buildings. 83-9 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Make no changes to Rule 16.6.2.4 – outdoor living space, retain limited discretionary activity status. 88-3 Cath Hepplethwaite Eclipse Group Ltd PO Box 5164, Wellesley St Auckland Private open space changes are amended to require such areas to be subject to such additional requirements so as to provide useful outdoor living space of an appropriate size in an appropriate location. The gradient provision is clarified as to whether it applies to original or finished gradient. 90-4 Environmental Services Division, NSCC C/- Alison Private Bay 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Geddes

Do not amend open space rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 115-5 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 122-5 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City 134-5 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City Agree with proposed changes to private open space. 117-4 Simon Upton PO Box 33-12349, Takapuna North Shore City Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to maximum gradient rules for outdoor living spaces. 135-7 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Do not amend open space rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 138-5 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 160-5 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to open spaces. 140-7 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-7 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-7 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 146-10 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City Maintain the existing control flexibility provisions relating to outdoor living space under clause 16.6.1.5. 146-15 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 201-2 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants 201-15 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 146-16 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City Do not amend open space rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 159-5 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to private outdoor living space. 175-2 Amy Li 29 Raleigh Road, Northcote North Shore City 224-8 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relied that satisfies the submitters concerns. 201-3 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 201-16 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Amend 16.6.2.4 vi - 1 in 5 slope control for living court to apply only to 6m-diameter circle. 213-4 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design 109 Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, RD3 Rodney District

Topic 10 Private Outdoor Space - Outdoor Living Space Delete requirement for 1 in 5 grade for outdoor living space but require applicant to demonstrate that the nominated space can be used in accordance with the Explanations and Reasons in the District Plan for the outdoor living 221-6 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

No objection to changes to outdoor space. 230-7 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Oppose change to ability to reduce private open spaces – leave as current. 234-8 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Decline deleting the ability to alter private open space. 244-4 Nalini Andrea Pereira and Gavin Gerard Jeddo 53 Coronation Road, Hillcrest North Shore City Do not amend open space rules - leave as was before Plan Change 17. 249-5 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-5 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Support changes to outdoor living spaces. 261-2 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Support changes to open spaces. 261-6 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Delete 16.6.2.4a (vi). 263-5 Brian Rickard 36 Ravenstone Place, Birkenhead North Shore City The refusal of Plan Change 17 provisions associated with reduction in open spaces. 265-4(a) Mr and Mrs RWS and AA Ritsma Agree with proposed change to reduction in open spaces. 275-9 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Make no changes to Rule 16.6.2.4 – Outdoor Living Space, retain unrestricted limited discretionary activity status for development control. 282-3 Igor Segroutes c/- Eclipse Group, PO Box 5164 Wellesley Street Auckland Delete changes to the private open space clause. 290-5 Simon Yates Planning Limited C/- Simon Yates PO Box 68-217, Newton Auckland Oppose changes to Rule 16.6.2.4 Open Space to exclude infill development from control flexibility. 303-3 Mr Craig Stevens 10 Hamilton Place, Glenfield North Shore City The addition of a gradient restriction for outdoor open space be deleted. 317-5 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Mark PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Hatten

Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of private outdoor living space. 320-7 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Existing rules relating to open spaces to remain as they are. 332-4 Steve Walker 4 Corunna Road, Milford North Shore City Oppose reduction in open space. 352-2 Don Yang 36A Lyttleton Avenue, Forrest Hill North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 354-8 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

5 Oppose changes to open space. 356-5 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Topic 11 Vehicle Crossings That additional assessment criteria at 12.5.1.2 are supported, however they should be further supplemented with criteria to deal with amenity and stormwater issues. 8-9 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to vehicle crossings. 14-15 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City 39-6 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale 232-4 Alex Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Abandon proposed changes to vehicle crossings. 21-8 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland The amendments to Table 12.3 and the additional assessment criteria at Rule 12.5.1.2(d) should be deleted or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter.

Topic 11 Vehicle Crossings 23-20 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-17 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Delete all proposed changes to vehicle crossings. 36-5 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Proposed changes to vehicle crossing should be deleted. 67-4 Dennis Crampsie 2 Holiday Road, Milford North Shore City Too many vehicle crossings. 83-10 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Amend provision 12.4.2.7 Vehicle Crossings to confirm that developments where a front site is subdivided into two front sites or a through site is subdivided to create two front sites, are unaffected by the rule. 90-5 Environmental Services Division, NSCC C/- Alison Private Bay 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Geddes

Oppose making any additional vehicle crossings for sites associated with infill housing a limited discretionary 127-6 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Oppose changes to vehicles crossings. 224-9 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Have reservations on changes to vehicle crossings – on site turning and controls regarding visibility splays would be more appropriate. 230-8 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Oppose change to vehicle crossings – leave as current. 234-9 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Agree with proposed change to vehicle crossings. 275-10 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Topic 12 Setback Garages Carports Requiring new garaging to be sited at least 5m back from the street boundary will result in increasing driveway length and could increase the risk of children being run over in these properties. Consider safety related issues. 1-1 Bridget Farmiloe ACC Private Bag 300 991, North Shore City That the 1m garage/carport setback behind the front face rule be deleted. 8-10 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City The garage door must be set back at least 5m where it faces the street boundary. 8-11 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Reconsider proposal on the set back of buildings from the street frontage. 13-1 Auckland Regional Public Health Service C/- Andy Private Bag 92 605, Symonds Street Auckland Roche

Amend current proposal and replace with District Plan changes that reduce the risks to children from driveway runovers by for example, ensuring vehicle driveways are not accessible from decks & gardens. 13-2 Auckland Regional Public Health Service C/- Andy Private Bag 92 605, Symonds Street Auckland Roche

Oppose changes to setback of garages. 14-16 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City 356-6 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Abandon proposed changes to setback of buildings from the street frontage. 21-9 G Bennison C/- c/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Oppose garages & carports not exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 22-1 Dave Bert GNA, GNA GNA Oppose garages & carports having to be set back at least 1m behind the front face of the dwelling. 22-2 Dave Bert GNA, GNA GNA The amendments to Rule 16.6.1.7 – Garages/Carports should be deleted and the deleted Res 5 provisions reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-21 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-18 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

The proposed changes to garages/carports be reconsidered in respect of architectural techniques and good urban design principals, site constraints, hard surfaces & landscaping. 26-2 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City

Topic 12 Setback Garages Carports Delete proposed changes to garages and carports. 28-6 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 85-6 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-6 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 98-6 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 137-6 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-6 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 166-6 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City 168-6 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-6 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 170-6 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-6 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-6 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-6 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-6 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Exempt pre 1930’s homes in Res 3 zone from the proposed new setback requirements for carports and garages. 29-1 Lindsay Brock 10 Bulwer Street, Devonport North Shore City Retain the existing provisions relating to garages and carports. 33-15 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 34-15 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd 35-15 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd 146-2 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City 354-15 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 33-16 Buildcorp Commercial Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 34-16 Buildcorp Investment Ltd C/- C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants Ltd

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 35-16 Buildcorp Management Ltd C/- C/- Meridian PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Planning Consultants Ltd

Support the addition of requiring garages etc not to exceed 40% of the width of the front face of the dwelling, but delete the rest of the proposed changes – ii) & iii). 36-6 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Remove the Res 3 zone properties from the proposed additional controls on garages and carports in the front yard. 37-1 Rob Burden 11 Cambridge Terrace, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to setback of garages etc – retain status quo, use parks & reserves contribution to create open 39-7 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale Oppose ban on garages and carports being located forward of the front face of a dwelling. 49-3 N G Chase 7 Mariposa Crescent, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete those aspects of Plan Change 17 relating to the new restrictions on garages & carports. 57-6 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City Proposed changes for garages & carports should be deleted. 67-5 Dennis Crampsie 2 Holiday Road, Milford North Shore City New rules for garages & carports are opposed – appear to conflict with the special provisions for Res 3 zone. 70-3 Barbara Cuthbert 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose the requirement for garages & carports to be setback at least 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit – this requirement be deleted with the emphasis instead placed on the garage not exceeding 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling. 72-7 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City That a clause be introduced to take into consideration designs where sufficient parking is achieved for example where two car parks are provided by way of attached double garage. 72-8 Wendy Davies Sovereign Homes NZ Ltd PO Box 303 055, North Harbour North Shore City Oppose new rules for garages & carports in Res 3 zone. 78-3 Devonport Heritage Inc C/- Cuthbert Ashmore 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Garages & carports in front of section are okay provided they are well made.

Topic 12 Setback Garages Carports 83-11 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Amend provision 16.6.1.7 Garages/Carports to define front face and include relevant assessment criteria to address the effects on the environment that are anticipated. 90-6 Environmental Services Division, NSCC C/- Alison Private Bay 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Geddes

Provide discretionary activity for alternative garage and carport designs for difficult sites. 110-2 Ian Grant 32 Lanigan Street, North Shore City Do not amend setback of garages and carports from street frontage rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 115-6 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 122-6 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City 134-6 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City 138-6 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 159-6 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City 160-6 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City Garages & carports should be allowed to be erected in the front of houses, disagree with making them setback. 116-8 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Strongly disagree with proposed change to garages & carports. 117-5 Simon Upton PO Box 33-12349, Takapuna North Shore City Remove changes to additional control on garages and carports. 125-3 Melissa He 54 Porritt Aveneue, North Shore City Oppose additional controls on width and setback from street boundary controls on garages & carports within front 127-7 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Support the proposed rule to set back garages and carports at least 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit. 127-8 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to restrictions relating to garages & carports. 135-9 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 146-3 JoelFlo Trust C/- Meridian Planning Consultants Ltd PO Box 8960, Symonds Street North Shore City Oppose changes to garages & carports. If concerned about streetscape introduce a landscaping requirement. 155-1 Richard Kane 63 Monarch Avenue, Hillcrest North Shore City Retain existing control flexibility for garages/carports but amend by requiring garage door entry at right angles to street frontage alignment. 165-3 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates PO Box 302104, North Harbour North Shore City Retain status quo for garage & carport setbacks in residential zones with no changes to current rules. 167-1 Lane Associates Ltd Cherie Lane 18 Domain Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to garages and carports in front yard. 179-3 Longyan Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St North Shore City 253-3 Pride Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St Auckland 339-3 Westlake Properties Ltd PO Box 7618, Wellesley St Auckland Oppose setback for garages. 191-3 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd PO Box 32021, Devonport North Shore City Remove or substantially revise proposal to changes controls for garages. 193-4 Gordon Martinsen PO Box 30 405, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to garages & carports. 197-3 M W McCarthy 47A Tirotui Crecent, Westmere Auckland Do not change existing District Plan rules relating to controls on garages/carport 198-5 Joanne McClean 18 Merton Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Retain the existing provisions relating to garages and carports. 201-8 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 201-9 The McLellan Family Trust C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Retain existing plan controls for garages/carports. 203-2 Edward Thomas McMillan PO Box 34 862, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete proposed change to garages – limited to less than 50% of front face and setback. 206-4 Brian Mearns 87 Island Bay Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Amend 16.6.1.7 – proposed changes to garages/carports to become a guideline only.

Topic 12 Setback Garages Carports 213-5 Lynda Murphy Paperspaces Architectural Design 109 Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, RD3 Rodney District Delete proposed changes to setback of building from the street in favour of the current rule but could agree to items ii) and iii) of these changes if they only applied to when garage doors are directly facing the street. 221-7 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Withdraw that part of the plan change relating to 16.6.1.7 Garages. 223-2 Marilyn Nicholls 3 Roseberry Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to location of garages/carports. 224-10 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Insert a clause clarifying that the control flexibility in 16.6.1.4 applies to all the rules in 16.6.1.7, including the proposed clauses i) & iii). The clause should state: c) “the percentage of the front face of the dwelling occupied by a garage or carport, and the 5m setback of the garage door from the street boundary may be subject to a Limited Discretionary activity”. 225-5 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Shift proposed Rule 16.6.1.7ii) to 16.6.1.4 Front Yards c) under control flexibility and amend the rule so that where garages and carports are erected within the 5m front yard, and the garage door/carport entry faces the street, the garage/carport is to be set back 1m behind the front face of the dwelling or unit. 225-6 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Add a definition of front face of the dwelling: “Front face of the dwelling or unit means the building elevation on a front of corner site as viewed from the street. On a corner site, the elevation containing the front door shall be deemed the front face of the dwelling”. 225-7 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Amend proposed Rule 16.6.1.7 i) to read: i) “garages or carports must not exceed 50% of the width of the front face of the dwelling or unit to which they relate. This rule shall not apply to two storey dwellings or units with a basement or ground floor garage”. 225-9 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to carports and garages. 232-5 Alex Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Proposed changes to garages/carports should be rejected entirely and para 16.6.1.7 should stand as at present. 233-1 Denys Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose change to setback of garages & carports from street frontage – leave as current. 234-10 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Do not amend rules relating to setback of garages/carports from street frontage - leave as was before Plan Change 249-6 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-6 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Rescind proposed changes to garages & carports. 250-2 R M Post 84 Norwood Road, Bayswater North Shore City Make no change to controls on the location of garages and carports. 258-4 L M Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 259-4 P J Reddington 58 Rawene Road, Birkenhead North Shore City 260-4 Steven W Reddington 2 Enfield Road, Napier Support changes to setback of buildings from street frontage. 261-7 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Delete 16.6.1.7. 263-6 Brian Rickard 36 Ravenstone Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Disagree with proposed change to setback of garages & carports from street frontage – should be a controlled activity within the front yard of a property. 275-11 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Defer the proposed changes to garaging provisions until a full assessment is made on the possible impact of these changes on the incidence of child drive-over events. 276-1 Safekids New Zealand C/- Ann Weaver PO Box 26488, Epsom Auckland Introduce changes that will reduce and prevent the incidence of drive over injuries for children living in North Shore City homes. 276-2 Safekids New Zealand C/- Ann Weaver PO Box 26488, Epsom Auckland That there be no changes to Rule 16.6.17 Garages. 283-2 Alan Shanahan Shanahan Architects Ltd 11 Hargreaves Street, Ponsonby Auckland Delete the proposed changes to garages and carport setbacks. 286-2 Rob Sherrell 11 Tudor Street, Devonport North Shore City Remove 16.6.1.7 from the Res 3 zones with Rule 16.6.1.4 still applying to the Res 3 zone. 299-1 Rosalie Stanley 58 Calliope Road, Devonport North Shore City

Topic 12 Setback Garages Carports Remove proposed Rule 16.6.1 7 ii) garages/carports applying 1m min setback of garages & carports. 303-4 Mr Craig Stevens 10 Hamilton Place, Glenfield North Shore City Remove proposed Rule 16.6.1 7 i) garages/carports not to exceed 50% of building frontage. 303-5 Mr Craig Stevens 10 Hamilton Place, Glenfield North Shore City Revert to the status quo for setback of garages/carports. 316-4 Ross Douglas Thurlow PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City The status quo remains in regard to the setback of buildings from street frontages. 317-6 Thurlow Consulting Engineers & Surveyors Ltd Mark PO Box 35-405, Browns Bay North Shore City Hatten

Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of controls on location of garages/carports. 320-8 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to additional controls on location of garages & carports. 323-3 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 11 Garden Terrace, Devonport North Shore City Garages/carports be permitted in the front yard as a controlled activity. 347-2 Morris Wong 34 Weldene Avenue, Glenfield North Shore City Any alternative or consequential relief that satisfies the submitters concerns. 354-16 Yessam Investments Ltd C/- Meridian Planning PO Box 8960, Symonds Street Auckland Consultants

Delete changes to 16.6.1.7 367-14 Colleen Prendergast North Shore City Topic 13 Residential 3 Zone Lot Sizes/Subdivision That a density standard and min lot size of 600 sqm net is provided for rear sites within the Res 3 zone. 8-12 Robert William Andrews Environmental Services Environmental Services, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 3 lot sizes. 14-17 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete the proposed amendment to 16.4.3 Policy 2(c) which reads “and do not provide for infill development” 20-2 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Delete the proposed amendments to 16.4.3 Policy 2(d), which refer to avoiding adverse effects on adjacent properties and maintaining the visual record of earlier settlements. 20-3 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Delete the proposed amendments to 16.4.3 Policy 5, which add a reference to retention of mature exotic trees, and private open spaces that enhance the historical or architectural character of the heritage area. 20-4 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Retain operative plan provisions in Table 16.2 for residential units not exceeding 2 per site in the Res 3 zones. 20-5 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Delete the proposed amendment to min frontage requirements in Rule 9.4.5.3 (b) which states that “no rear sites shall be permitted”; or 20-6 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Any consequential amendments to explanation and reasons, and other sections of the plan to which the plan change relates, that are required to give effect to the submission. 20-9 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City The amendments to Res 3 zone lot sizes – Rules 9.4.5.3, 9.4.5.8, 16.4.3 and 16.5.1 should be deleted and the operative provisions for the Res 3 zone reinstated or amendments made to remedy the submitters concerns in a manner acceptable to the submitter. 23-22 Beta Properties Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd 256-19 Rangitoto Holdings Ltd C/- Harrison Grierson PO Box 301 278, Albany North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Oppose the removal of rear lots from the Res 3 zone – the reference to infill housing be removed and the provision for rear lots be reinstated. 26-1 Boulder Planning Limited PO Box 300 629, Albany North Shore City Delete proposed changes to min lot size and rear lots in the Res 3 zone and no infill housing. 28-7 Kelvyn Bredenkamp PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 85-7 Jacqueline Dykstra 12 Landing Road, Albany North Shore City 97-7 Ben Furniss GJ Gardiner Homes 20 Constellation Drive, North Shore City 137-7 Dave Hunt PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 147-7 Alex Johnston PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 168-7 Logan Latham PO Box 25, Albany Village North Shore City 169-7 Robert Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City

Topic 13 Residential 3 Zone Lot Sizes/Subdivision 170-7 Sheila Lavender PO Box 80, Albany Village North Shore City 218-7 Robyn Ann Neil 64 Kohimarama Road, Kohimarama Auckland 251-7 Craig Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 252-7 Kirsty Potter Team Design 44B Clifton Road, Takapuna North Shore City 311-7 Evelyn Tate 29 Rakino Ave, Little Manly Auckland Support proposed change of the min net site area for Res 3A from 400 to 450 sqm. 36-7 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Support the proposal that no rear sites be permitted. 36-8 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Delete the two exception clauses proposed in 9.4.5.3. 36-9 Vivienne Bull PO Box 32 072, Devonport North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 3 zone lot sizes – retain status quo. 39-8 Fiona Butler 9 Beatrice Ave, Hillcrest Silverdale There needs to be scope for the replacement of individual dwellings at higher density in Res 3 & 4 zones, provided development is in keeping with the character of an area. 49-2 N G Chase 7 Mariposa Crescent, Birkenhead North Shore City Delete those aspects of Plan Change 17 relating to the removal of provision for infill development in Res 3 zone. 57-3 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City Delete those aspects of Plan Change 17 relating to the increase in min lot size in the Res 3A zone. 57-4 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City Delete those aspects of Plan Change 17 relating to the removal of the ability to create rear sites. 57-5 Clime Asset Management Limited C/- Martin Wilson Environmental Law Chambers, PO Box 106 215 Auckland City Delete the no rear lot provision for Res 3 zone or make it applicable to properties with an area less than 900 sqm or 1000 sqm. 59-1 David Collett 37 Maritime Terrace, Birkenhead North Shore City Retain the ability for infill housing within the Res 3A zone by alternative means. 68-5 Trevor Cullen 38 Cranston Street, Browns Bay North Shore City Changes to the policy provisions for Res 3 zone are opposed. 70-2 Barbara Cuthbert 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Defer any hearing & decision on the change in so far as it affects the Res 3 zone to allow the heritage character review to be completed with urgency and to ensure a coherent approach is taken to amending the policy framework and related rules of the built heritage zone. 70-4 Barbara Cuthbert 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Approve the lower density and visual privacy changes in Res 3A zone. 78-1 Devonport Heritage Inc C/- Cuthbert Ashmore 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Defer any hearing & decision on the change as it affects the Res 3 zone to allow the heritage character review to be completed with urgency, and to ensure a coherent approach is taken to amending the policy framework and related rules of the built heritage zone. 78-2 Devonport Heritage Inc C/- Cuthbert Ashmore 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Consultants Ltd

Oppose changes to policy provisions for Res 3 zone. 78-4 Devonport Heritage Inc C/- Cuthbert Ashmore 2A St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Consultants Ltd

In heritage areas, agree with old houses not having modern units or other houses types on large sections. 83-12 Mr R Duffin 87 Stott Avenue, Birkdale North Shore City Heritage areas need special consideration to maintain unique overall appearance & the special ambience and 92-4 Janis Fairburn 258C Onewa Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 3 zone – maintain status quo. 93-1 Mervyn and Joyce Fairgray 28 Queens Parade, Devonport North Shore City Delete proposed changes to min lot size and rear lot sin the Res 3 zone and no infill housing. 98-7 Anthony Ian Houston G J Gardner Homes PO Box 25 , Albany North Shore City 166-7 Sandra Lane 148 Awaruku Road, Torbay North Shore City Do not amend Res 3 lot size rules - leave them as was before Plan Change 17. 115-7 Jim Hammond GNA, GNA GNA 122-7 Miranda Hawker 14 Newbury Place, Oakvale North Shore City 134-7 John Hoy 2/252 East Coast Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City 138-7 Nicole Hunt 40 Landing Drive, Albany North Shore City 159-7 Kerry King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City 160-7 Wendy King 23 Waipa Street, Birkenhead North Shore City

Topic 13 Residential 3 Zone Lot Sizes/Subdivision Single dwelling per site in Res 3 zone – should be on a case by case basis taking into account land size. trees etc. 116-9 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Infill housing continued to be permitted in Devonport. 120-2 Wayne Harris 10 Buchanan Street, North Shore City Oppose increasing the required min site/lot areas for subdivision & development in Res 3A zone. 127-4 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Oppose changing the status of second or more residential dwellings on sites in the Res 3 zone to non complying. 127-9 HNZC Chris Hansen C/- Tonkin & Taylor PO Box 2083, Wellington Plan change to be adjusted to exclude very large undeveloped sections e.g. those over 1200 sqm in the Res 3 zone from the proposed changes. 128-1 Dinah Holman 38 Clarence Road, Northcote North Shore City Oppose the proposal to prevent rear site subdivision in Res 3 zones. 129-7 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to the removal of the provision for infill development in Res 3 135-4 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to increase in min lot size for Res 3 zone. 135-5 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Delete the requirements of Plan Change 17 relating to the removal of rear lots in Res 3 zone. 135-8 Hume Architects Ltd Chris Hume Private Bag 106 605, Downtown Auckland Retain 450 sqm min net site area for Res 3A zone. 165-4 M G Lamb Lamb and Associates PO Box 302104, North Harbour North Shore City Retain policy on rear lot subdivision in Res 3 zone. 180-1 David Graham Loughlin PO Box 32-385, Devonport North Shore City 181-1 Dr Susan L Loughlin 48 Waterview Road, Devonport North Shore City Remove proposed changes to infill housing in the Res 3A zone and consider how the situation could be better managed rather than devaluing properties. 185-1 Simon and Hilary Mackenzie 22 Russell Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose restriction of lot size in Res 3A zone to 450 sqm. 191-1 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd PO Box 32021, Devonport North Shore City Oppose all restrictions on subdivision. 191-4 Joseph Martin Devonport Realty Ltd PO Box 32021, Devonport North Shore City Remove or substantially revise proposal to prevent rear lots in Res 3 zone. 193-5 Gordon Martinsen PO Box 30 405, Birkenhead North Shore City Support change to Res 3 zone but should be done in conjunction with the planed changes to rules regarding alterations to heritage houses. 205-1 Margot McRae 11 St Aubyn Street, Devonport North Shore City Delete proposed changes to limit the intensity of development and to not provide for infill in Res 3 zone. 214-1 Sean Murray 33 Summer Street, Devonport North Shore City That the proposal to ban rear lots in the Res 3 zone be cancelled. 221-4 New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, Auckland PO Box 5974, Wellesley St Auckland Branch Ross Miller Land Consultant Ltd C/- Ross

Oppose changes to Res 3 zone. 224-11 Bob W Nicholson PO Box 12505, Penrose North Shore City Amend proposed Rule 9.4.5.3b) to enable the further subdivision of existing rear lots and larger properties – for example in excess of 1200 sqm, in accordance with the min net site area for the zone. Make consequential amendments to Rule 16.5.1 – Table 16.2 to provide for the above changes. 225-8 North Shore City Council C/- Trevor Mackie Private Bag 93 500, Takapuna North Shore City No objection to changes to Res 3 lot sizes. 230-9 Simon O'Connor 56 Elgin Mansions, Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale London W9 1JQ England

Decline proposed changes to activity status for subdivision and development of a second residential dwelling in Res 3 zone. 231-1 P O'Hagan MSC Consulting Group C/- Alistair White PO Box 33-426, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 3 zone lot size. 232-6 Alex Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Anne Street is a special case, the present section size (300 sqm) and site coverage (60%) are well outside the Res 3 zone criteria – the land between the west boundary of the Anne Street properties, Queens Parade, Spring Street and the foot of the hill below Calliope should be rezoned Res 6.

Topic 13 Residential 3 Zone Lot Sizes/Subdivision 233-2 Denys Oldham 31 Cowper Street, Devonport North Shore City Oppose change to Res 3 zone lot sizes – leave as current or introduce selective identification of significant heritage 234-11 Des Calder C/- Outline Homes Ltd 6/14 Triton Drive, Albany North Shore City Do not amend rules relating to Res 3 zone lot sizes - leave as was before Plan Change 17. 249-7 Marisa Poolman 29B Hogans Road, Glenfield North Shore City 289-7 Signature Homes C/- Stewart Wilson 31 Uppingham Crescent, Northcote North Shore City Support changes to increase minimum lot size to 450 sqm in Res 3A zone and min frontage requirements. 261-8 T Reid-Copus PO Box 31823, Milford North Shore City Support the increase in min lot size in the Res 3 zone. 269-6 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Support introducing non complying activity for second dwelling and associated objectives. 269-7 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society C/- J A 22A Kauri Glen Road, Northcote North Shore City Lewis

Disagree with proposed change to Res 3 zone lot sizes - there should be a minimum subdivision criteria for rear lots of say 500 sqm. 275-12 Ron Sadler 5 Minnehaha Avenue, Takapuna North Shore City Leave Rule 9.4.5.3 a) & b) – Res 3 zone site area and min frontage requirements unchanged. 302-1 Roger Steele 1 Stanley Point Road, Devonport North Shore City Leave Rule 16.4.3 - Res 3 Zone Built heritage, unchanged. 302-2 Roger Steele 1 Stanley Point Road, Devonport North Shore City Leave Rule 16.5.1. – Activity Status Res 3 zone & 16.6.2.3 – Density Res 3 zone, unchanged. 302-3 Roger Steele 1 Stanley Point Road, Devonport North Shore City Amend proposed Plan Change 17 to allow subdivision in Residential 3 zone to create rear lots on lots 1000 sqm or greater. 307-1 Owen Sturgess 59 Awaroa Road, Henderson North Shore City New rear lots in Res 3 zone should be permitted. 314-2 Andrew Thomson 46 Vauxhall Road, Devonport North Shore City Proposed change is overly restrictive in terms of rear lots and min site area in Res 3 zone. 320-9 Mr Alan Tresadern 16 Calman Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to rear lots & increase in min lot size in Res 3 zone. 323-4 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 11 Garden Terrace, Devonport North Shore City Support Plan Change 17, in particular as it affects Res 3 zone lots sizes. 344-1 Elisabeth Olds Wilson 50 Waterview Road, Devonport North Shore City Support Plan Change 17 in respect of Res 3 zone lot sizes. 345-1 Ken Wilson 50 Waterview Road, Devonport North Shore City The change of activity status of second or more residential units on sites in Res 3 to non-complying should only apply in the Res 3A zone. 346-1 Dave Winter 12 Wilding Avenue, Northcote North Shore City The restriction on new rear lots should only apply to the Res 3A zone. 346-2 Dave Winter 12 Wilding Avenue, Northcote North Shore City Oppose changes to Res 3 zone lot sizes. 356-7 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Topic 14 Site Specific Make an exception for the property at 4 Beatrice Ave, Glenfield. 7-2 Vaughan Anderson PO Box 40-246, Glenfield North Shore City Make specific provision for the subdivision and development of 11 Rodney Road, Northcote under the operative plan rules for the Res 3B zone. 20-7 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Such further or other relief as may give effect to the submission. 20-8 K Benfell, R Benfell and R Hawes C/- Jenny 14 Advance Way, Albany North Shore City Allow the subdivision of a lot of 373 sqm and the construction of a dwelling on it at 16 Cheryl Place, Glenfield. 32-1 Harold Buckton 16 Cheryl Place, Glenfield North Shore City Allow 69 Raleigh Road, Northcote to be subdivided under the present rules. 50-2 Chat Investments Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow 27 Bond Crescent, Forrest Hill to be subdivided under the present rules.

Topic 14 Site Specific 51-2 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow 35 Lingfield Street, Glenfield to be subdivided under the present rules. 51-3 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow 14 Bardia Street, Takapuna to be subdivided under the present rules. 51-4 Chec United Ltd C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow the creation of a 350 sqm site at 33 Sunnynook Road. 52-1 Thomas Cheng 109 Nile Road, Milford North Shore City No changes to minor residential units, or an individual exemption for 8 Sealy Road, Torbay. 69-2 Gary and Karina Curran 8 Sealy Road, Torbay North Shore City Providing for subdivision on existing site at 88 Bayswater Drive is appropriate means of accommodating a dwelling. 79-2 M J Dobbyn 88 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater North Shore City Allow subdivision of 6 Fowler Street, Northcote under present rules. 80-2 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision 1/105 Ocean View Road, Northcote under present rules. 80-3 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision of 105 Ocean View Road, Northcote under present rules. 80-4 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision of 35 Totaravale Drive, Sunnynook under present rules. 80-5 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision of 12 Howard Road, Northcote under present rules. 80-6 S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Oppose the Plan Change as far as it may affect the potential of the property at 54 Archers Road, Glenfield to be subdivided or crossleased in the future, including the retention of the existing approved minor residential unit. 158-1 Kilimanjaro Rentals No 1 Ltd C/- Jan Laurie and 30 Saltburn Road, Milford North Shore City Alistair Laurie

Re-zone 45 Birkdale Road (being Pt Allot 128, Parish of Takapuna) to Res 4. 202-6 B McMichael C/- S Dietsch 5 Ardmore Road, Herne Bay Auckland Allow subdivision of 75 Greenslade Crescent, Northcote under present rules. 215-2 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision of 170 Lake Road, Northcote under present rules. 215-3 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision of 69 Greenslade Crescent, Northcote under present rules. 215-4 G D Naidoo C/- S H Dodhy 12 Howard Road, Northcote North Shore City Allow subdivision of 28 Wicklow Road, Devonport under present rules. 216-2 Kuganasen Naidoo 11 William Gamble Drive, Albany North Shore City Allow subdivision of 2 Waverley Ave, Glenfield under present rules. 216-3 Kuganasen Naidoo 11 William Gamble Drive, Albany North Shore City Retain existing district plan provisions in relation to the number of dwellings and number of lots, which can be developed from the site at 27 Stanley Point Road. Refine these existing provisions to provide for additional residential units and/or additional lots ion the property as a discretionary activity with a range of assessment criteria that will address the potential adverse effects of infill development. Amend the proposed change to Part 16 policies by replacing “do not provide for infill development” with “‘to provide for infill development where the design avoids 222-4 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell PO Box 91250, Auckland Any other consequential amendments in support of the submission. 222-5 Hazel and Campbell Newman C/- Boffa Miskell PO Box 91250, Auckland Minimum lot size to remain at 350 sqm for 5 Raeben Ave. 236-1 Mr Park 5 Raeben Avenue, Hillcrest North Shore City That relief be given where preparation for consent application is under way by the property owners and specifically in relation to 264 Forrest Hill Road that consents (land use, building, resource) be viewed under the Res 4A rules as they stood prior to April 7. 243-1 Penticton Ltd C/- Cameron Russell PO Box 25-047, St Heliers Auckland Resource consent application to subdivide to be considered under the conditions of the operative District Plan to form a rear section in a Res 3A zone and to retain a min lot size of 400 sqm. 273-1 Mrs Judith Ryan 11 Crowther Terrace, Taupo If the above approach is not accepted, request a spot zoning allow the future subdivision of 67 Gladstone Road into two residential units based on current subdivision criteria. 294-2 Gordon and Joy Smith 67 Gladstone Road, Northcote North Shore City

Topic 14 Site Specific Oppose the increased in the lot size to 450 sqm from 350 sqm in the Res 4A zone as it relates to 65 Francis Street, Takapuna. 326-1 Anthony Edwin Valentine 1A Riviera Place, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose the planned increase in min site area on property at 88 Forrest Hill Road. 330-1 Neil and Jenni Waddell 88 Forrest Hill Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City Like certain existing properties, especially those such as ourselves, which have already shown an intension to subdivide, to be granted an indefinite exemption for the new 450 sqm ruling, subject to an application for exemption being made within six months. 330-2 Neil and Jenni Waddell 88 Forrest Hill Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City If the plan change is adopted, request that the property at 4 Corunna Road, Milford be excluded from the changes and the ability to subdivide to a min 350 sqm be retained. 332-5 Steve Walker 4 Corunna Road, Milford North Shore City Topic 15 Procedural Matters Consult with residents, developers & other interested groups by way of open forum without implementing such 44-1 Murray Calder 28a Harley Road, Takapuna North Shore City Compensate landowners by reducing rates. 65-1 Marcus Arnold Coverdale 132 Calliope Road, Devonport North Shore City Allow existing plan to continue for minimum net site area in Res 4A zone, until plan has been changed by NSCC, if such change occurs. 82-1 Richard Cameron Drew 422 Duck Creek Road, RD 3 North Shore City If all or part of the plan change goes ahead, allow property owners a period of grace (1 year) to develop specific properties – allow them under the existing regulations. 84-2 Dundalk Investments Ltd C/- Antony Kabalin 5 Phoebe Meikle Place, Torbay North Shore City Phase in any changes over an 18 month period. 118-2 Mark Harper 40 Castor Bay Road, North Shore City Withdraw the plan change until such time as the review of the District Plan is undertaken & then its effects will be able to be judged in context. 129-2 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Uphold the savings clause where any proposed changes have no effect on a lawfully established development. 132-1 Mr Murray Hoverd 61 Selwyn Crescent, Milford North Shore City Allow more time to debate both sides and the social and economic effects of high density housing as well as considering the upgrading of services over the next 20 years to cope with heavy density infill housing. 140-1 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-1 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-1 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City Postpone proposed changes to Res 4A & 4B lot sizes 3-5 years to allow those wishing to put things in order before the new rule applies; or 140-3 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-3 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-3 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City Enforce rule changes for Res 4A & 4B on new owners after properties change hands so that new buyers are aware; 140-4 In Clover Family Trust C/- Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 141-4 Heng Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City 142-4 Mrs Muny Ing 74B Onewa Road, Northcote North Shore City If all or part of the changes go ahead, allow property owners a period of grace (1 year) to develop properties under existing regulations. 154-2 Antony Kabalin 5 Phoebe Meikle Place, Torbay North Shore City A month’s notice be given before the proposed changes are enforced. 189-3 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 9 Glenwood Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Delay implementation of proposed rule by 18-24 months to allow those affected to apply under current rules; or 209-2 Jonathan Michell 38 Eversleigh Road, Takapuna North Shore City Council pays compensation for not being able to subdivide as everyone else has. 209-3 Jonathan Michell 38 Eversleigh Road, Takapuna North Shore City Clarify whether rates would reduce if subdivision is no longer permitted. 235-2 Tony and Delwyn Palmer 28 Dallinghoe Crescent, Milford North Shore City Oppose retrospective date 6/06/2006, change should be made after consultation. 254-2 Karen Radley C/- Peri Operative Dept 1st Floor, North Shore Hospital, Shakespeare Road Takapuna North Shore City

If the changes are passed, make the Plan Change 17 changes from 6/10/2006 & allow current applications to

Topic 15 Procedural Matters 254-3 Karen Radley C/- Peri Operative Dept 1st Floor, North Shore Hospital, Shakespeare Road Takapuna North Shore City

If change is made, change the date until after the new plan is complete or 6 months – 06/10/2006. 255-2 M A Radley 3 Tyne Road, Forrest Hill North Shore City Plan Change 17 be applied to new applications for land use consents and not to existing dwellings, whether or not on cross lease or freehold titles. 291-1 Mr Robert Sintes 90 Wiroa Road, Keri Keri Oppose any changes to District Plan for 1 year after notification (of the plan change). 348-2 Clive Richard Wood 12B Wicklam Lane, Albany North Shore City Topic 16 Other Matters Amend the first additional assessment criterion proposed in Section 16.7.2 “Assessment Criteria for Controlled and Discretionary Activities” by removing the phrase “the extent to which” and replacing it with alternative wording that more accurately conveys what criterion NSCC requires applicants to meet or aspire to. 12-2 H D Jarvis Auckland Regional Council Private Bag 92 012, 0 Auckland Remove 3m rear yard – allow better use of rear sites. 14-9 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Make height to boundary 2.5m + various angles e.g. other local cities. 14-10 Axis Consultants C/- Andrew Stirling PO Box 34 658, Birkenhead North Shore City Proposed change does not equate with the Regional Growth Strategy. 79-4 M J Dobbyn 88 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater North Shore City Additional issue is noise pollution from vehicles force to manoeuvre in restricted access. 92-2 Janis Fairburn 258C Onewa Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Additional issues is lack of visitor parking. 92-3 Janis Fairburn 258C Onewa Road, Birkenhead North Shore City Improvements to control flexibility overall as discretionary activities. 112-3 Guardian Developments C/- Barry Kaye Assoc Ltd 493 New North Road, Kingsland Auckland Make sure there are suitable parks & reserves, encourage landscaping & tree planting. 116-7 Nicolette Hansen PO Box 101 309, NSMC North Shore City Zero lot boundaries be allowed for side & rear boundaries. 129-5 D W Hookway PO Box 340163, North Shore City Agree with larger sites in areas of bush & unique environments. 195-2 Grant Massey 52 Holyoake Place, Birkenhead North Shore City Change the Comprehensive Housing Development provisions in Section 16.7.3.11 so that the density requirements are clarified so that each unit in such development is provided with a min area of land as specified in the table in 265-21(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants Change the plan be removing the Terrace Housing provisions from the Res 4 zones except where they are within 100m from a major transport route. 265-22(c) Mr RWS Ritsma – RDM Consultants Rename the Plan Change “Improving Residential Amenity” & refocus the provisions. 323-1 David Truscott and Gaynor Revill 11 Garden Terrace, Devonport North Shore City Examine ways to control above issues with better/clearer rules, which would attain the solutions the public are 356-8 Jennifer Yorke PO Box 34 279, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose changes to increase the lot size for subdivision 359-1 Steve Li 309 Albany Highway, Albany North Shore City Oppose changes to minimum lot size in Res 4A and 4B 360-1 Sharon Amphlett 401 Lake Road, Takapuna North Shore City Oppose Plan Change 17 in total 361-1 Meng Wang 25 Downing Street, Glenfield North Shore City Support all submissions that opposed the proposed changes 362-1 Ben Magrill Benzed Property Investment Ltd 9 Glenwood Avenue, Birkenhead North Shore City Oppose all changes to Res 4A and 4B zones 364-1 Ying Huang 61 Parker Avenue, New Lynn Auckland 366-1 William Chiang 61 Parker Avenue, New Lynn Auckland Oppose all changes in Plan Change 17 363-1 Chun Chi Gaow 61 Parker Avenue, New Lynn Auckland 365-1 S C Ching 61 Parker Avenue, New Lynn Auckland