Final comment from Agent - Visual dominance and Sunlight access - Visual dominance and ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
21. Final comment from Agent
- Visual dominance and
Sunlight accessFrom: Joe Gray
To: Louise Barclay
Cc: Julia Te Hira; Quinn Hamill; Thomas Trevilla; Scott Cheng
Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Date: Friday, 23 April 2021 12:01:43 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg
image003.png
image004.png
Afternoon Louise,
Thanks for confirming your position. Please go ahead with your recommendation.
While I respect your view, below is a brief closing statement for the duty commissioner to consider when making his/her
decision:
Visual dominance effects on the northern boundary
The HIRB infringement on the northern side is limited to a corner of the proposed structure. Comprehensive
landscaping and areas of open space are proposed along the northern boundary, resulting in a soft edge to the
boundary and (in my view) improved amenity.
This is a better outcome and results in less dominance than a compliant alternative, whereby someone could build a
structure along the entire length of the boundary that is 2m offset and up to 5m high (or significantly higher within
20m of the front boundary if the alternative HIRB provisions are utilised).
The dwellings to the north have living areas that are oriented away from the development (north).
Sunlight access effects on southern boundary
Any new building on the subject site will cast a shadow on the neighbouring outdoor living spaces to the south. The
proposed development will result in an increased area of shading from what would otherwise be permitted, however
there are ample outdoor living spaces for both the properties at 8B and flat 4/10 Glenora Road that can be utilised
and that are not in shade for the majority of the year.
I acknowledge your view that the covered area of yard at 4/10 Glenora Road might not be considered outdoor living
space as per the AUP definition, however there is no distinction between primary, secondary or alternative outdoor
living space. So the remaining outdoor living space on the north eastern side (front) of the dwelling at 4/10 Glenora
Road should be considered outdoor living space, as per the AUP.
I disagree with the identification of the additional outdoor living space at 8B Glenora Road. This space is part of a
narrow rear yard between the dwelling and fence and is 2m (or less) in width. I do not consider this to be useable
outdoor living space.
The applicant cannot control shading cast by other structures outside of the subject site.
Kind regards
Joe
Joe Gray BEM, MRP (Hons), MNZPI
Planning Manager
Babbage Consultants Limited
Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010
PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
DDI +64 9 367 5233 M 021 076 7668 E joe.gray@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz
Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect.
CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and
subject to legal privilege.
If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all
copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-
mail.From: Louise Barclay
Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2021 4:00 PM
To: Joe Gray
Cc: Julia Te Hira ; Quinn Hamill ; Thomas Trevilla
Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Good afternoon Joe,
Thank you for your email and sorry for the delay in getting back through to you with a processing update. I have undertaken
a comprehensive review of the s92 response provided 8th April, and can advise that I am still heading in the direction of
limited notification for the following properties;
Visual dominance effects
Flat 2/59 Takanini Road,
Flat 3/59 Takanini Road,
Sunlight access effects
Flat 4/10 Glenora Road,
8B Glenora Road
I have prepared a detailed explanation of the how I have considered the shading assessments undertaken, in particular, an
interpretation sought from our Principal Specialist Planners. Please refer to the attached letter.
At this stage I feel I would be in a position to proceed with my notification recommendation to the Duty Commissioner
unless the I am advised that you would like to provide me with additional shading/sunlight access assessment or are seeking
written approval from the above properties.
Thank you for your time.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards
Louise Barclay | Intermediate Planner
Resource Consents South | Auckland Council
Mob: 021 546 780 | Email: louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Level 3 Kotuku House, 4 Osterley Way, Manukau
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
From: Joe Gray
Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2021 7:36 AM
To: Louise Barclay ; Scott Cheng
Cc: Julia Te Hira ; Quinn Hamill ; Thomas Trevilla
Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Morning Louise/Scott,
Just checking into see what view you have formed re notification? Appreciate that the DE may still be reviewing the traffic
info but we are keen to see where you are sitting following Thomas’ response from 8 April.
If either of you could give me a call today, that would be great.
Thanks
Joe
From: Joe Gray
Sent: Thursday, 15 April 2021 7:46 AM
To: Thomas Trevilla ; Louise Barclay
Cc: Julia Te Hira ; Quinn HamillSubject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Hi Louise,
In addition to the attached, CORT have been in discussions with some of the tenancy managers to give council an
understanding of typical car ownership in their existing developments. Please consider the below statement as part of the
s92 response.
“CORT are a non-for-profit Community housing provider and as such we retain and manage our properties for many years
(often 20+ years). We strive to provide housing for our tenants which are accessible, affordable and comfortable. As such we
ensure our properties are close to community amenities such as shops, schools, public transport and healthcare. This results
in a significant reduction the requirement for vehicles for our tenants. We have conducted a review of our properties and can
provide multiple comparable examples where there are either no tenants owning cars or below 30% ownership of cars within
our developments. CORT prides itself in the high level of tenant management we provide and while to date we have never had
complaints regarding parking in or around our developments we have the resources available to respond and manage any
issues that may arise.”
I will try and contact you later on today and discuss with you.
Thanks
Joe
Joe Gray BEM, MRP (Hons), MNZPI
Planning Manager
Babbage Consultants Limited
Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010
PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
DDI +64 9 367 5233 M 021 076 7668 E joe.gray@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz
Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect.
CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and
subject to legal privilege.
If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all
copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-
mail.
From: Thomas Trevilla
Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2021 5:12 PM
To: Louise Barclay
Cc: Joe Gray ; Julia Te Hira ; Quinn Hamill
Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Hi Louise,
TPC completed their parking survey, undertaken from 8 April to 10 April 2021, which monitored on-street parking demand in
the vicinity of the subject site.
Attached is their additional traffic assessment letter and TPC concludes the following:
The parking survey results indicate parking demands of 10 to 20 vehicles over the periods surveyed indicating some
60 to 70 on-street car parking spaces available.
In our opinion, the parking survey results confirm a low level of on-street parking demand and a high level of parking
availability. This indicates that any additional on-street parking demands generated by the proposal can be
accommodated with no adverse traffic related effects.
This assessment supplements the additional section 92 response letter sent on 8 April 2021 and believe that this satisfies
request item 2.Ngā mihi | Kind regards, Thomas Trevilla BUrbPlan(Hons), Grad.NZPI, YRMLA Babbage Consultants Limited Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010 PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand T +64 9 379 9980 DDI +64 9 367 5251 M 027 612 3315 E thomas.trevilla@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect. CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-mail. From: Thomas Trevilla Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:11 PM To: Louise Barclay Cc: Joe Gray ; Julia Te Hira ; Quinn Hamill Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini Hi Louise, Hope you had a good long weekend and a week so far. A response letter to the outstanding request items and the additional urban design comments is attached. The supporting attachments have been uploaded to OneDrive: https://babbage- my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/thomas_trevilla_babbage_co_nz/Et8eaDNiQvFBtTEiUZfwv9ABEiLZPShjWGCVWk7pQjxDNg? e=AYnRmG The one outstanding item is request item 2, TPC is currently conducting an additional survey and further information is being gathered. Once complete this will be forwarded for DE review. Ngā mihi | Kind regards, Thomas Trevilla BUrbPlan(Hons), Grad.NZPI, YRMLA Babbage Consultants Limited Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010 PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand T +64 9 379 9980 DDI +64 9 367 5251 M 027 612 3315 E thomas.trevilla@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect. CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-mail. From: Louise Barclay [mailto:louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2021 2:15 PM To: Thomas Trevilla ; Joe Gray Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini Hi Thomas and Joe, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you both regarding the section 92 response for the above job, As advised earlier this week – I have received feedback from the urban design specialist and development engineer. The following items of the section 92 letter have been determined to be outstanding (Items 1, 2, 9, 11 & 12): Development Engineer
Item 1: Please send through the confirmation from Veolia once it is assessed.
Item 2: The development engineer has identified that the traffic report states that there is sufficient off-street
parking, however has not provide sufficient evidence to back the statement. The following comments was received
from the DE:
Please include off-street parking assessment in the traffic report to support the parking statement. The off-
street parking assessment need to show that the short fall in on street parking space can accommodate in off
street.
There is a shortfall in 2 parking space (33%) for 15 units. As a worst-case scenario the site could generate 30
parking spaces as each unit has a potential to generate 1 parking space each. It is considered that potential
adverse traffic safety issues arising on the adjacent local road network including intersection and immediate
surrounding properties is inevitable. The argument has been previously made that, it’s a CORT development
and the residents have low vehicle ownership however in the pre-application meeting it was discussed that
evidence would be provided to support this statement, relying on other parking shortfall assessments
undertaken for other CORT developments?
Item 3: It is acknowledged that the vehicle crossing design has been provided – however crossing splay will not
achieve the 1m clearance from the power pole and will require approval from Auckland Transport and the
network utility provider. If approval is denied, then the vehicle crossing cannot be constructed and the applicant
will be required to consider relocation of the power pole and a subsequent s127 application will likely be
required. Please advise if you would like to proceed with knowledge of this risk.
Planning & Urban design:
Item 9: It is acknowledged that bollards will be implemented - however we will need at least a basic concept plan to
show where the bollards will be located.
Shading diagrams, Items 11 & 12:
Item 11(b) requested that the location and size of the outdoor living spaces of neighbouring sites should be shown in
addition to the extent of existing building on the neighbouring sites. The shading diagrams provided have imposed a
4x5m outdoor living space rectangle which is not the actual outdoor living space for these dwellings. The assessment
criteria H5.8.2(5)(a) clearly requests us to assess the extent of shading over the existing outdoor living space where
the area of the space is greater than the minimum required by Standard H5.6.4. Therefore it is considered that the
AEE addendum has incorrectly applied this criteria.
The plans do not quantify the percentage of shading/sunlight access at different intervals of the day to confirm
whether full sunlight access is retained between the hours of 9am – 4pm during the Equinox (22 September) over
75% of the existing outdoor living space where the area of the space is greater than the minimum required by
Standard H5.6.4.
In addition to the above, the scale of the shading diagrams are so small that we cannot quantify the extent of
additional shading to any degree of accuracy.
Item 12(b) has not been suitably addressed. The extent of additional shading has not been quantified or explained
Provide calculations and an explanation of the additional shading generated by the proposed HIRB infringements
when compared to complying with HIRB for each adjoining site. (It would be beneficial if each shading diagram is
scalable so the extent of shading can be measured).
Other Matters/comments:
The following other comments have been received from the Urban Design specialist:
1. In further discussions with the Urban Design Specialist – Jennifer has advised than in drafting her preliminary
assessment she was having another look at the southern elevation and has concerns about perceived overlooking
from this southern elevation toward neighbouring properties due to large amounts of clear glazing for the core and
windows from habitable rooms. Jennifer has recommended the following:
To amend the landscape plan to provide specimen trees in the area shown as fern garden/lawn area on the
southern boundary. A cross section between the building and the neighbouring houses to determine the height
the trees would need to get to before they offer any mitigation of overlooking (likely need to be 4-5m at time of
planting to start providing mitigation of overlooking from the top story and therefore planting the trees at a larger
grade might be appropriate to reduce the time for the trees to provide the mitigation required). Note that whilst
it is the south side (and therefore not a direct source of sunlight) the trees should be positioned carefully so as to
not block residents views from living and bedroom areas (filtered views through foliage may be acceptable), whilst
also restricting visual access to the neighbours – particularly to their outdoor living areas.2. Paving: what material is proposed is still unclear. I would suggested a condition of consent that details paving
materiality with the final detailed landscape plans.
3. Materials: Details of panels are not provided. I would suggest a condition of consent be included that requires final
details of the materials, of particular interest would be those patterned panels.
4. Ideally the fencing on street front would be lower, I do note this has been reduced in height to 1.5m and permeable
with hedging behind. This is accepted.
5. Jennifer has noted that from what she can tell of the shading diagrams - shading effects appear to be over and above
that of a compliant building envelope.
In addition to the above recommendation from Jennifer – it is noted that overall the landscape scheme is at a very
conceptual level, I acknowledged that you have requested a condition of consent be imposed to finalise the landscape
scheme (which will be part of our condition set), however no information about Pb, size at planting has been provided to
enable us to consider the level of mitigation the landscaping would form from implementation – or after ‘x’ amount of
years…
Thank you for your time, please let me know if there are any questions.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards
Louise Barclay | Intermediate Planner
Resource Consents South | Auckland Council
Mob: 021 546 780 | Email: louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Level 3 Kotuku House, 4 Osterley Way, Manukau
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
From: Thomas Trevilla
Sent: Thursday, 25 March 2021 11:20 AM
To: Louise Barclay
Cc: Joe Gray
Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Morning Louise,
We’re following up on the status of the application – Joe will give you a ring.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards,
Thomas Trevilla
BUrbPlan(Hons), Grad.NZPI, YRMLA
Graduate Planner
Babbage Consultants Limited
Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010
PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
T +64 9 379 9980 DDI +64 9 367 5251 M 027 612 3315 E thomas.trevilla@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz
Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect.
CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege.
If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all copies of the message and
attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-mail.
From: Louise Barclay [mailto:louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2021 8:39 AM
To: Thomas Trevilla
Cc: Joe Gray ; Julia Te Hira
Subject: Re: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Hi Thomas,
Apologies for the delay in touching base with you and your team - I have received feedback from the specialists
and will send this through today, I have a couple of meetings this morning however I expect to touch base earlyafternoon. Kind regards, Louise Barclay Get Outlook for Android From: Thomas Trevilla Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 10:15:31 AM To: Louise Barclay Cc: Joe Gray ; Julia Te Hira Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini Morning Louise, Hope you had a good weekend — can you please provide an update on the application’s status. Ngā mihi | Kind regards, Thomas Trevilla BUrbPlan(Hons), Grad.NZPI, YRMLA Graduate Planner Babbage Consultants Limited Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010 PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand T +64 9 379 9980 DDI +64 9 367 5251 M 027 612 3315 E thomas.trevilla@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect. CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-mail. From: Louise Barclay Sent: Friday, 12 March 2021 11:01 AM To: Thomas Trevilla Cc: Joe Gray ; Julia Te Hira ; Quinn Hamill Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini Good morning Thomas, Thank you for your email yesterday, I am writing to acknowledge that the section 92 response has been received, and forwarded on to the relevant specialists. I will be looking to confirm whether all section 92 matters have been addressed by mid next week, once I have received feedback from the specialists. I understand a s221(3) cancellation/variation of consent notice application is to be lodged. Please let me know when this has been lodged and I will allocate it to myself. Thank you for your time. I will let you know if there are any questions/clarifications.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards
Louise Barclay | Intermediate Planner
Resource Consents South | Auckland Council
Mob: 021 546 780 | Email: louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Level 3 Kotuku House, 4 Osterley Way, Manukau
Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
From: Thomas Trevilla
Sent: Thursday, 11 March 2021 2:00 PM
To: Louise Barclay
Cc: Joe Gray ; Julia Te Hira ; Quinn Hamill
Subject: RE: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini
Good afternoon Louise,
Thank you for the processing update and the comments you provided in your email dated 9th March 2021.
The applicant’s response to your section 92 request letter, dated 12th February 2021, for BUN60370825 (LUC60370826,
SUBS60370827) is detailed in the letter and supporting attachments in this OneDrive link:
https://babbage-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/thomas_trevilla_babbage_co_nz/Eg0MYx91kYRGnl-
a7p47bLMBt2tjxvuAXvyXLzuy0oCz_Q?e=UvvqTI
The following items are noted in particular:
Request item 1: The applicant and Babbage have been engaging Veolia for AIP over the last two months. The water
capacity assessment was sent on 19th January 2021 and, after requests for updates throughout this period, Veolia
informed the applicant on their modelling would be completed soon and a response would be sent. This will be
forwarded when it is received. A record of correspondence is included in the attachments.
Request items 8 and 13: Referring to sheets 200 and 201 of the updated architectural plans, there have been some
changes to cladding and specific detail regarding the impervious paving and patterned panels are currently unable to
be confirmed as it will be based on specific geotechnical requirements. A condition of consent requiring confirmation
prior to construction is suggested. This is being worked through between CORT and the architects, engineers and
contractors.
Suggestion item 2: In light of the issues regarding notification, and particularly potential limited notification of the
owners/occupiers of 2-3/59 Takanini Road and 8B Glenora Road, the applicant seeks that council refer this application
to a duty commissioner to make a determination on notification only. Joe will get in touch regarding this.
Please let me know if you encounter any issues with accessing these documents, or if council requires further information or
clarification.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards,
Thomas Trevilla
BUrbPlan(Hons), Grad.NZPI, UDF, YRMLA
Graduate Planner
Babbage Consultants Limited
Level 4, 68 Beach Road, Auckland 1010
PO Box 2027, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
T +64 9 379 9980 DDI +64 9 367 5251 M 027 612 3315 E thomas.trevilla@babbage.co.nz W babbage.co.nz
Our Values: Sustainability, Team Work, Innovation, Professionalism, Respect.
CAUTION: This email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege.
If received in error, please notify us immediately, do not distribute the information to any party and erase all copies of the message and
attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this E-mail.From: Louise Barclay [mailto:louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz] Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:41 PM To: Joe Gray ; Thomas Trevilla Subject: s92 request for further information | BUN60370825 | 61 & 61A Takanini Road, Takanini Good afternoon Joe and Thomas, I hope the week has been going well, and I apologise for the delay in getting this formal section 92 letter out to you. Please see the attached formal section 92 RFI to enable us to have a better understanding of the proposal and assessment of effects. I note your email below you would like to specifically discuss items 6, 7, 10c, 11 and 13 (below email 9.02.2021), these are now referenced items 7, 8, 11c, 12 & 16 within the attached section 92 letter. Unfortunately, we are unavailable to meet Tuesday afternoon however if you could provide some available times to have an MS Teams meeting Wednesday (17th) or Thursday (18th) next week, I can confirm with Jennifer the urban design specialist. Please also note the section 37 letter attached however, although the timeframes for the processing of this application has been doubled – we will endeavour to process this application as soon as possible. Thank you for your time, Please let me know if there are any additional items you would like to discuss. Kind regards, Louise Barclay Louise Barclay | Intermediate Planner Resource Consents South | Auckland Council Mob: 021 546 780 | Email: louise.barclay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Level 3 Kotuku House, 4 Osterley Way, Manukau Visit our website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Have your say on Auckland Council's 10-year Budget 2021-2031. CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar carried with our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.
You can also read
