Regulatory Committee Report To:

The Chairperson and Members of the Regulatory Committee

From:

Melissa Slatter – Consultant Planner (Beca)

Subject:

LU/0131/16

Meeting Date:

28 September 2016

File Reference:

04351/583.00

APPLICANT:

Windsor Trust

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

17 Hamilton Road Cambridge 3434

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

Pt Allotment 547 Town of Cambridge East (SA1208/297)

SITE AREA:

2,023m²

ZONING – DISTRICT PLAN:

Residential, Cambridge Residential Character Area

PROPOSAL:

Demolish heritage building & erect visitor accommodation

SURVEYOR:

CKL Surveys Ltd

NB:

This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner to the Regulatory Committee. This report has yet to be considered by the Committee, and the recommendation contained in the report is not the decision on the application. A decision will only be made after the Committee has considered the application and heard the applicant and any submitters. The application has been referred to the Regulatory Committee as planning staff do not have delegated authority to determine notified applications where submissions have been lodged.

1

THE SITE

1.1

The subject site is located on Map 24 within the Residential Zone of the Waipa Proposed District Plan (PDP) and is subject to the Cambridge Residential Character Area as shown on Figures 2 & 3 below. Furthermore, the site contains a building identified as a Category C heritage item (H126 - a residential dwelling). This building is a single storey brick Californian Ranch-style dwelling that was built in 1956 by local builder George Veldwijk.

1.2

The site is a rectangular shape with 40.22m frontage and access to Hamilton Road and 50.28m frontage and access to Hall Street. Both Hamilton Road and Hall Street feature the Character Street Policy Area in the PDP. The site is generally flat and has a number of large trees on and around the property (one of which was historically a notable tree, which was removed and the salvageable portion of the trunk was carved into a Kereru – native wood pigeon). There are no listed trees remaining on the property or on the adjacent Hamilton Rd or Hall St road reserve.

Figure 1: The site and Category C heritage dwelling. 1.3

The site is surrounded predominantly by residential dwellings. There are three visitor accommodation facilities in the vicinity along Hamilton Road (The Mews – directly opposite the site, Captains Quarters and Penmarric House).

Figures 2 and 3 – District Plan Map 24 Zone and Policy Areas

2

BACKGROUND Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 2

2.1

A similar application (LU0203/13) was lodged on 12 November 2013 and was publicly notified on 4 December 2013. The original application comprised a 666m2 hotel building with 18 guest rooms (accommodating 43 people), and was to have a maximum height of 13m.

2.2

Amended plans were submitted in September and December 2014 in response to submissions and an independent landscape/visual assessment of the original application. Changes were made to the building layout, orientation and placement on the site. The number of guest rooms was also increased from 18 to 20, and the car parking area was moved to the southern end of the site. External features of the proposed building were also changed and the height reduced to 8.5 m (9 m including the chimneys).

2.3

The amended plans were provided to submitters on 19 December 2014, and the application was due to be re-notified. However the application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant pending further advancement of the Proposed Waipa District Plan (PDP).

3

THE PROPOSAL

3.1

The proposal seeks land use consent for the demolition of the heritage building, and construction and operation of a visitor accommodation facility in the Cambridge Residential Character Area.

3.2

The proposed demolition is for a Category C heritage building listed in the PDP. This building, “Veldwijk House” is listed as having ‘Community Significance’.

3.3

The proposed visitor accommodation facility will consist of a new 2 storey (9.0m high including chimneys) 612m2 building containing 20 guest rooms capable of accommodating a maximum of 42 guests. The facility will operate on a bed and breakfast basis and will not provide facilities or services for non-guests. A manager and another staff member will live onsite, and employ up to 4 additional staff members.

3.4

The site will have access from Hall Street, with the existing access onto Hamilton Road closed. The site will provide 25 car parking spaces (including 2 accessible spaces and 1 stacked staff parking space). The area of car parking is 640m2 which can be seen in Figure 4 below and in the Site Development Plans attached as Appendix xx. The proposal includes site and perimeter landscaping (as per the Landscaping Plan), as well as two additional street trees, 3.24m2 signage to advertise the site externally and additional area of interpretive heritage boards on the property boundary.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 3

Figure 4– Site Development Plan

4

NGA IWI TOOPU O WAIPA (NITOW) CONSULTATION

4.1

NITOW have advised that they have no concerns about the application.

5

NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

5.1

The application was publicly notified on 2 June 2016 at the request of the applicant. Submission closed on 30 June 2016.

5.2

31 submissions were received during the statutory submission period. 1 submission was received on 13 July 2016 (9 days after submissions closed). A letter was sent to the late submitter on 14 July 2016 seeking detailed reasons why a waiver to comply with the timeframe should be granted, no response has been received from the submitter. Therefore, it is recommended that the submission of Mr A McGrath be ruled invalid. A summary of the submissions is attached at Appendix 4.

5.3

Following a review of the submissions by the various specialists, Council issued a further information request on 8th August 2016 in respect of Heritage and landscape/visual and urban design matters. The applicant responded to this request on 12 August 2016.

5.4

The submissions raised a number of issues which have been summarised in the following table. Council’s response to the matters raised in submissions is addressed in section 8. Table 1 - Summary of Submissions

Effect Heritage

Summary of submission points Submissions in support concluded:

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 4

Residential Character and amenity

Traffic & Parking

• Marginal or no heritage value or visual qualities, demolish it to make way for new development • Cambridge needs more accommodation. Submissions in opposition concluded: • Cambridge has significant heritage and architectural value to be protected, the house contributes to the community’s history and should be retained (previous studies recommend it should have a Category a C+ or B heritage value) • The loss of a much admired and iconic heritage dwelling will have a detrimental effect on overall heritage qualities of Cambridge which the PDP seeks to protect Submissions in support concluded: • Development will enhance aesthetics of surrounding Cambridge Submissions in opposition concluded: • Hall St and Hamilton Rd are character streets, the building design style and appearance of the development does not ‘echo’ this character and is incompatible with the lifestyle/privacy of a residential street. Demolition of the heritage building will affect this character in some undefined way. • Visitor accommodation and use of the site for non-residential activities will have a detrimental effect on the residential character and community, and compromises special character values of Hall St. • Scale of proposal is too large (including area of carparking, building bulk, signage, traffic), unsympathetic to neighbouring properties and residential privacy. • Cumulative effect on residential character when considered with “The Mews” on opposite corner. • A holistic amenity and character assessment of all components of the works and replacement activity must be undertaken. • Glare, daylighting/overshadowing, odour/cooking smells, refuse attracting vermin, outdoor smoking, signage, construction effects, electrical interference from the proposal will be an issue for neighbouring sites. • Additional mitigation needed (landscaping or high fencing) for privacy. There were no submissions in support on this matter. Submissions in opposition concluded: • Lack of parking for staff, large/heavy vehicles, loading vehicles, increased traffic, and effect of overflow street/berm parking for Hall Street residents from a variety of users (horse floats, HCV and bus parking, utes and trailers, truck drivers). • The Te Awa Lifestyle Village and other developments should be taken into account when considering traffic effects. Traffic and parking are already issues in Hall Street and this will get worse.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 5

Noise

Effect on established trees

Tourist Accommodation

Other Matters

• Oppose motel driveway off Hall Street (it is a narrow quiet residential character street). Access should be from Hamilton Road. • Carpark and access is a very dominant feature, creates adverse effects and should be landscaping screening the carpark. • Street is widely used by cyclists and walkers using the entrance to the cycleway and Avantidrome, pose hazards to elderly Resthaven residents who ride mobility scooters on the Hamilton Rd and Hall St footpaths. Submissions in opposition concluded: • Business is open 24/7 therefore movement of vehicles and people in the car park and smokers in the courtyard all hours. Noise from vehicles parked outside carpark (on adjacent roads as overflow parking). Noise from service vehicles arriving late/early morning. • The acoustic and traffic assessments should be peer reviewed by the council experts. Submissions in opposition concluded: • Felling of 2 to construct the motel. • Hall St sealed entrance and overflow parking on the berms will cause stress on the mature tree root system. Submissions in support concluded: • There is growing demand for motel / hotel accommodation. In the first 5 months of 2016, accommodation directory views increased 84%. This proposal will help meet growing demand for short term accommodation in Cambridge and is supported. • It will benefit the Cambridge community to have more visitor accommodation for Fieldays, rowing regattas, Avantidrome events etc. Submissions in opposition concluded: • Cambridge is home to a number of quality events and needs accommodation however there are other proposals in the pipeline and this site is not appropriate. It should not be in Residential areas but in the town centre or near the expressway entry / exits. • This is not the right site for the proposal, notwithstanding the need for visitor accommodation in the Cambridge Town concept Plan. Already 3 motels in close proximity, including one across the road, non-commercial area. • There is no provision for family units. Other matters raised in submissions in opposition included: • Effect on value of surrounding property. • The consent does not comply with the rules and regulations of the Operative district plan. • We have low water pressure and with the new motel, this will likely worsen.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 6

• The applicant omitted the plans in the initial documents. This could be a breach of the RMA and may have put off would-be submitters. • Conditions of consent have a short shelf life. • What mitigation methods were implemented by WDC on the previous motel consented in 1994 and how effective was this mitigation. • Demolition/removal was anticipated by Council, building is leaky and has asbestos. It is a health hazard and should not be protected. Demolition is supported.

6

OFFICER COMMENTS

Summary comments from various technical specialists and Council officers is included below. A more thorough assessment of the effects addressed by each of these officers is provided in section 8. Development Engineer 6.1

Council’s Development Engineer, Murray James, has recommended a number of conditions of consent relating to the upgrade of the entrances (formation of the Hall Street entrance and closure of the Hamilton Road entrance), formation of the car parking area, provision of three waters infrastructure (water supply, wastewater and stormwater disposal), and formation of service easements. Draft conditions of consent are recommended to cover these issues. His comments are provided in Appendix 5 of this report.

Transport Engineer 6.2

Council commissioned Beca Ltd, Jamie Minchington – Senior Transportation Engineer, to undertake a transport review of the application which is included in Appendix 6 of this report. Overall it is considered that the application meets the transport related standards of the PDP required of a motel/visitor accommodation facility and the traffic effects can be managed appropriately through draft conditions of consent. The primary matter identified in the assessment was to include a monitoring condition to monitor whether parking on adjacent streets increases as a result of the proposed activity as this may lead to safety and amenity issues. Provided this and the NZTA conditions are included in any approved consent, the Transport engineer considers the transport related effects of the application are acceptable.

Landscape/Visual Assessment and Urban Design Specialists 6.3

Council commissioned Beca Ltd, Annette Jones (Urban Design) and Ben Frost (Landscape Architect) to make an assessment of the application. This included an Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 7

initial Landscape and Visual assessment of the original application in 2014 and an addendum letter to update that report assessing the current application. Furthermore a supplementary note was prepared by the Urban Design specialist on 22 August 2016 in response to the further information provided by the applicant on 12 August 2016. 6.4

The initial landscape and urban design concerns with the proposed building were: • Reduction of the bulk and scale of the hotel by reducing its prominence with the use of landscaping. • Addition of two mature Maples (street trees) on Hamilton Road • Removal of every second brick column in the fence to reduce its bulk • Address blank walling on east and west façade through architectural detail • Address the bulk and massing and heavy geometric configuration of the Hamilton Rd façade

6.5

The applicant has provided positive design changes on the first four matters, which incorporates site and street landscaping, reduces the brick massing of the fence, has included darker panelling and retention of slot windows on the east/west building elevations, and introduced a pedestrian path connecting the building to Hamilton Road.

6.6

The most significant matter however is the bulk/scale, and uniformity of the Hamilton Road façade. The applicant has reduced the width of the brick pillars from 800mm to 600mm to assist in reducing the strong geometric lines. However the proposal has not addressed the uniformity or scale of the Hamilton Road elevation, and the fact that the building entry has ‘flipped’ so that it relates to the carpark and not Hamilton Road. Therefore it is still considered that the building is not in keeping with the residential appearance and character of the surrounding area. To overcome this, Council’s Landscape and Urban Design specialists have recommended: •

6.7

The Hamilton Road façade incorporates features that break up the uniformity of the three pavilions by creating a feature in the central pavilion (such as stepping the central pavilion back, or matching the rear elevation with the front elevation) to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding environment.

Further detail can be found in the “Addendum to Anniton Hall (Windsor Trust) Landscape and Visual Assessment” and Supplementary note on Urban Design Review Responses to the Section 92 Request for Windsor Trust Land Use Consent Application in Appendix 7 to this report.

Heritage Specialist 6.8

Council commissioned Simmons & Associates Ltd, Alexy Simmons, to undertake a review of the Archifact assessment submitted with the application, and the further information provided on 12 August 2016. Council’s heritage specialist does not support the demolition of this Category C heritage building, and concludes the Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 8

resource consent should be declined. The main issues identified by Simmons & Associates in relation to the key issues and deficits in the heritage assessment are: a) Insufficient information in the Heritage Report regarding the heritage assessment of the building to permit the demolition of the Veldwijk House (as per Section 21.2.22.3 and 21.1.22.12 of the PDP), such that the Archifact report should be disregarded. b) Inappropriate heritage criteria and methodology to assess the appropriateness of the building’s heritage value, therefore inadequate assessment of a scheduled building in the PDP. c) Insufficient information of the effect of the heritage loss on the local Cambridge community. The heritage review is attached as Appendix 8 to this report. Cambridge Heritage Committee 6.9

The Cambridge heritage committee did not submit on the application, however their views on the application were provided separately via email to the reporting Planner dated 8 July 2016 by the Chairperson – Sue Milner and is attached in Appendix 9 to the report. The Heritage Committee discussed the application, and offered the following comments regarding the new proposal: • Concerned about the entrance off Hall St - a significant street view in Cambridge that should remain. As Hamilton Rd is no longer State Highway 1 they see no reason for the entrance to the site to be on Hall St, which they understand was the reasoning for the location of the entrance in previous proposal. • Concerned about the red brick as a cladding on a large building – they do not see this as relating to the Cambridge streetscape. The Mews motel opposite the Windsor site is clad in Hinuera which better reflects the Hamilton Rd area- indeed the only red brick buildings they could think of are the Gaslight Theatre and the Water Tower industrial rather than residential. • The Committee did not have a view on the building’s demolition. These matters are discussed further in the traffic and urban design assessments.

Environmental Health Officer 6.10

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the noise assessment provided with the application. In summary the assessment is appropriate and there were no concerns with the findings and recommendations. Draft conditions of consent have been recommended to monitor the noise from the site and undertake any further mitigation if necessary. The staff comments are included in Appendix 10 of this report.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 9

7

DISTRICT PLAN PROVISIONS – CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDUSE CONSENT

7.1

The subject site is zoned Residential and features a Cambridge Residential Character Area overlay in the PDP.

7.2

Under rule 2.4.1.4f) visitor accommodation is a Discretionary Activity.

7.3

Under rule 22.4.1.1i) the demolition of a Group C heritage building is a Discretionary Activity.

7.4

The proposal fails a number of other standards being; • 2.4.2.6 - Maximum building length - Restricted Discretionary • 2.4.2.11 - Permeable surfaces - Discretionary • 2.4.2.18 – Fences - Restricted Discretionary • 2.4.2.21(b) – Noise on Sundays and Public Holidays - Discretionary • 6.4.2.28 - Signage in the Residential Zone - Discretionary • 16.4.2.15 - Vehicle parking, loading, and manoeuvring – Discretionary

7.5

The standards are thus assessed in Table 1:

Table 1: Assessment of Application against the Residential Zone Rules PROPOSED WAIPA DISTRICT PLAN Rule No.

Summary of Rule

Complies Comments

2.4.1.4. f)

Visitor Accommodation

x

Activity does not comply with Rules 2.4.2.11, 2.4.2.18, 4.2.28 and 16.4.2.15. Demolition and land use activities remain Discretionary. Therefore Activity Status is Discretionary.

2.4.2.1

Minimum building setback from roads - 4m



The proposed building is setback 7.5m from both Hamilton Road and Hall Street.

2.4.2.2

Minimum setback



The proposal complies, meeting a distance of 7.5m respectively on each side.

Hall Road – 7.5m Hamilton Road (SH1) – 7.5m

These two streets are also character streets in the PDP. Typically a 6m setback is required on character streets. The greater setback in Rule 2.4.2.2 is used this instance.

Character Streets (Hall Road and Hamilton Street) – 6m

2.4.2.3

Building design No more than 50% of front façade



The proposal complies as there is no garage in front façade. This is

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 10

shall be garaging

due to the proposed garage facing south towards the neighbouring lot.

2.4.2.4

Minimum building setback from internal boundaries shall be 2m.



Complies on all internal side boundaries, 2.52m on western internal boundary and 17m on southern internal boundary.

2.4.2.5

Dwellings adjoining marae

NA

Not applicable

2.4.2.6

Building lines in excess of 23m that adjoin Residential Zones on internal boundaries shall have the wall and roofline stepped to a minimum of 2.4m and a minimum length of 3m.

x

The wall parallel to the western boundary has a total length of 23.7m. The wall is stepped to a depth of 0.8m for a length of 8m. The Urban Design review comments that this minor exceedance is acceptable. The stepping of the western wall helps to break up the length.

2.4.2.7

Cambridge Park Structure Plan

NA

Not applicable

2.4.2.8

Maximum building height - 9m



The proposed hotel does not exceed 9m height (incl. chimney).

2.4.2.9

Daylight control, a height recession plane of 2.7m from the ground and at an angle of 28o and 45o on the southern and northern side.



The proposed hotel meets this requirement.

2.4.2.10

Maximum site coverage shall not exceed 40%



The proposed building’s footprint is 30%. 615m2 / 2024m2 = 30%

2.4.2.11

Minimum area of permeable surfaces should meet 40%

x

Building footprint plus parking /paved areas are 2024m2, which is 71% of the total site, leaving only 29% of permeable surface. Increased stormwater runoff can be managed appropriately, however there is an effect on residential amenity.

2.4.2.12 2.4.2.16

Maximum site coverage and permeable surfaces: St Kilda Structure Plan

NA

Not Applicable

Cambridge North Structure Plan Area 2.4.2.17

The minimum area of glazing on the front façade(s) of a building that adjoins a public place shall be 15%, provided that:

The minimum area of glazing on the front façades directed towards Hall Street and Hamilton Road will greatly exceed the minimum glazing requirements.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 11

a) Where a site adjoins a public place, the front façade(s) of a building shall be all the sides of a building that faces the public place; and b) The percentage area of glazing shall be measured as the framed wall opening size to accommodate the entire window. 2.4.2.18

Fence height shall not exceed 1.2m if impermeable and 1.8m if permeable.



Hamilton Road elevation: 107.52m2 / 192.6m2 =59% Hall Street elevation: 152.1m2 / 45.76m2 =30%



x

The height of fences surrounding the entire perimeter varies between 1.2m and 2m: Solid timber fencing along southern and western boundaries will not exceed 1.8m, though the road boundary pillars will be 2m in height. The urban design review concludes the fence is mostly permeable. The 2m high pillars will not appear an over whelming element from the footpath.

2.4.2.19

Landscape planting between buildings on the site and any public place shall allow visibility between the dwelling and the public place.



Although the proposal is not for a dwelling, visitor accommodation will be used for habitable purposes. Planting alongside northern and eastern boundaries are visually permeable. Existing trees located externally from site are not going to be removed in development process. Native kereru carving proposed to be relocated to the corner of Hall Street and Hamilton Road.

2.4.2.20

Design and layout of development adjoining water bodies and reserves

2.4.2.21 – 2.4.2.24

Activities shall be conducted and buildings located, designed and used to ensure that they do not exceed the following noise limits at the boundary of the site: Monday to Saturday - 7.00am to

NA



Not Applicable

The activity will comply with all but one of the noise standards. The daytime noise on Sundays and Public Holidays is expected to exceed 40dBA (Leq) but comply with 50dBA (Leq) as per Monday

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 12

10.00pm 50dBA (Leq)

2.4.2.25

to Saturday standards.

Sundays & Public Holidays 8.00am to 6.00pm, 40dBA (Leq)

x

Vibration standards will be complied with.

At all other times 40dBA (Leq)



Noise sensitive activity rules adjoining railway tracks are not applicable.

Night time 10.00pm to 7.00am single noise event 70dBA (Lmax)



Where a noise sensitive activity is proposed to be located within 40m of a designated State Highway, the building shall be insulated so that it achieves the following noise levels:



Acoustic Assessment provided with application confirms compliance.

NA

Not Applicable.

a) Inside habitable rooms (including bedrooms) 40 dB LAeq (24 hour) 2.4.2.262.4.2.27

Noise: temporary military training activities

2.4.2.28

Signs shall not exceed 0.25m2 in any direction.

2.4.2.29

Signs giving information for events

NA

2.4.2.30

Earthworks shall not exceed 25m3

_

2.4.2.31 – 2.4.2.45 22.4.1.1

Various rules Demolition of a Category C Heritage Building

x

NA

2 x 1.62m2 signage is proposed. The 3.24m2 signs for the Hotel will be externally illuminated at the corner of Hamilton Road and Hall Street. Additional signage for the historic interpretive boards is also proposed and is to be tabled by the applicant at the hearing. Not Applicable No comment made but it will be a condition of consent. Not Applicable

x

Discretionary Activity



42 guests / 3 = 14 spaces

Section 16 – Relevant Transportation Rules 16.4.2.13

Parking, loading and manoeuvring areas Visitor Accommodation 1 space per every 3 persons designed to be accommodated plus 1 space per two staff members. No loading

4 staff / 2 = 2 spaces 1 park for the resident manager 17 spaces required. 25 spaces provided.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 13

requirements. 16.4.2.15

Vehicle parking, loading/unloading, and manoeuvring areas shall: a) Not encroach on any setback, outdoor living area, or bicycle parking spaces; or other loading/unloading areas and manoeuvring areas shall not encroach over vehicle parking spaces and; b) Be designed, formed, and constructed in accordance with Appendix T2 and ensure that the surface of the required area provides a dust free environment; and c) Provide for the safe and efficient disposal of surface stormwater clear of any adjoining access or road surface in a way that does not result in ponding or scouring;

16.4.2.2

x





The car park will be formed and constructed in accordance with Appendix T2 requirements.

Stormwater will be managed on site and directed to Council’s reticulated stormwater system.

a) Provide at least one tree planted for every 5 parking spaces at a grade of no less than PB95. For the avoidance of doubt, PB95 is equivalent to a tree that is at least 1.5m tall at the time of planting; and



25 spaces are provided, 5 trees are required and shown on the Landscaping Plan in a cluster at the entranceway.

b) Ensure lighting is designed to avoid shading areas or isolating areas of public use.



Lighting will avoid shading areas, there are no areas of public use.

Carpark landscaping and lighting All carparks must:

7.6

Parking spaces and manoeuvring encroaches on internal setbacks, but the carparking area is screened by a 1.8m solid timber fence on the southern and western residential boundaries.

Legal Effect of Rules in the Proposed District Plan 7.6.1 Section 86B of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out the circumstances when a rule in a proposed district plan is deemed to have legal effect. In this case, all the rules from the PDP (as listed in Table 1 above) are considered to have legal effect.

7.7

Activity Status

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 14

7.7.1 Overall, the proposal is considered to be a Discretionary activity, due to its status under rules 2.4.1.4f) and 22.4.1.1i) of the PDP. 7.8

Permitted Baseline Assessment 7.8.1 The applicant includes an assessment of the effects against the permitted baseline (effects which would be permitted as of right by the plan, or unimplemented consents). The effects of demolition of the heritage dwelling are disregarded (as no permitted baseline can be applied to those effects). The summary of the applicant’s position in section 4.2 of their AEE is that a development footprint of 809m2 (comprising a principal dwelling, secondary dwelling and accessory buildings), up to 9m in height, 7.5m from the road boundaries would be permitted on the site, with design control being limited to: • Up to 50% of Hamilton/Hall frontages consist of garages • 20m maximum unbroken building length • 15% glazing of Hamilton/Hall façade 7.8.2 Council has discretion over the application of the permitted baseline approach. It is my opinion that the permitted baseline approach is not helpful in the assessment of effects of this application and should be disregarded. The level of development permitted by the PDP currently on this site is limited for the following reasons: •

• • •

•

•

The site features a heritage building, and any further building on the site (with the exception of accessory buildings complying with 2.4.2 standards) would require resource consent to either modify or demolish the dwelling as a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 22.4.1.1(i). Any secondary ancillary dwelling permitted on this site is required to be connected to the existing dwelling. The site is within the Cambridge Residential Character Area. Any infill housing (two – six principal dwellings) on this site is a discretionary activity pursuant to 2.4.1.4(c). Visitor accommodation is a discretionary activity and the purpose-built non-residential nature of the building results in amenity and character effects that are not typical of a residential building on the Hamilton Road frontage. Despite the large lot size, residential development permitted on the site would be unlikely to have the same extent of building length and uniformity along Hamilton Road (although it could be 9m high and 7.5m from the road). A dwelling would have a variety of residential features which provide visual interest on the Hamilton Road frontage such as a garage, front door, lounge or bedroom either side. A 30m long 9m high pavilion style residential dwelling set back 7.5m from the road with equal uniformity on this site is in my view fanciful and unlikely. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 15

8

SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT

A consent authority must have regard to a number of matters under section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) when considering an application for resource consent. Those considerations include the actual and potential effects of an activity on the environment, the relevant provisions of the PDP, regional plan or other relevant statutory document, and any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. The following assessment addresses all relevant considerations under s104 of the RMA. Assessment of Environmental Effects 8.1

Heritage Effects 8.1.1. The dwelling has is scheduled as a Category C heritage building with local significance. The assessment of the applicant’s summaries, that despite the external appearance of the building retaining a high degree of authenticity, the building doesn’t warrant scheduling and should not be protected under the PDP. Notwithstanding this, if demolished recording of the building should be undertaken. 8.1.2. Despite the application concluding the building does not warrant scheduling in the PDP, this resource consent is not an assessment of the appropriateness of scheduling the building, but rather an assessment of the extent of adverse effects on the wider community should this building be demolished, and whether its adverse effects could be avoided/remedied or mitigated. 8.1.3. Council’s heritage specialist (Alexy Simmons) concludes the heritage assessment provided by the applicant should be disregarded and inappropriately assesses the building’s heritage values. Ms Simmons assesses the building against the PDP criteria and completes the information gaps in the applicant’s assessment regarding the PDP requirements for a heritage assessment of a PDP scheduled building. This assessment concludes that the application should be declined based on insufficient information provided in the application. The assessment also indicates there will be some heritage loss that can’t be mitigated, as mitigation actions never completely replace the loss of an extant heritage structure, but are accepted as the best practice procedures to mitigate the effects of development. Ms Simmons’s assessment outlines mitigation options that could be adopted to off-set the demolition of the building. 8.1.4. The demolition of the historic building to make way for redevelopment of the site for Hotel purposes results in a permanent loss of the heritage values on Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 16

this site, and an irreplaceable loss of the contribution the heritage building has on the residential character and amenity of the neighbourhood. The applicant acknowledges the contribution this house and George Veldwijk has made to Cambridge, and has agreed to various mitigation to partially off-set the loss of these values. 8.1.5. Additional mitigation has been discussed with the applicant and Council and is recommended to include the following aspects, however more details are expected to be tabled by the applicant at the hearing: • Architectural and photographic recording of the building fabric, focussed on identifying and recording information about the house’s original use by the Veldwijk Family as well as recording the changes in the structure overtime. This work shall include a thorough investigation of the building fabric to answer questions about the fabric of the building and draft conditions of consent have been recommended. • Architectural plans prepared in a CAD system (electronically and hardcopy). The building information shall be compiled as a report. In addition larger format plans shall be provided with the report and a copy of the digital photographs copied to CD. • A complete 3D digital laser scan of the entire site including existing buildings and perimeter fencing. • Copies of the report information shall be deposited with WDC and the Cambridge Library. The large format architectural drawings, photo CD, a copy of the report and any samples of relevant building material shall also be deposited with the Cambridge Museum. • Retention of the Brick and Metal Boundary Fence/ Wall adjacent to Hamilton Road and 15 to 20 metres of the wall/fence from Hamilton Road south along Hall Street shall be preserved. • Interpretive heritage signage shall be provided on the perimeter of the property. Detailed design plans for the proposed signage shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory, for approval. Council will discuss the plans with the Cambridge Museum. The interpretive heritage signage shall be erected no later than 30 days of the Hotel being open and be maintained by the current and future owners of the property. a) The signage should include the erection of a sign that contains: i. detailed interpretation of the history of the structure, and ii. photographs and plans that illustrate how the structure changed over time. b)

The signage will commemorate the history of the place and provide a focus for public education.

• Interpretive heritage signage shall be displayed in a prominent room within the building (the Lounge/dining room for example). Detailed Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 17

design plans for the proposed signage shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory, for approval within 3 months of the date of this consent. Council will discuss the plans with the Cambridge Museum. The interpretive heritage signage shall be erected no later than 30 days of the Hotel being open and be maintained by the current and future owners of the property. • A covenant shall be entered on the Certificate of title alerting future landowners of their obligations to maintain the heritage brick fence and interpretive heritage signage required by Conditions 21, 22 and 23 of this consent. 8.1.6. Criteria 11.5h, Section 21.2.22.3 of the PDP assesses the extent to which the significance of the item to the community has been considered and the outcomes of any consultation undertaken. This aspect has not been well addressed in the Archifact report which states “we have been unable to determine the significance of this place to the community”. No public consultation has been undertaken by the applicant. The significance of this item to the community is one of the primary reasons for its scheduling and was discussed in the 2014 Simmons & Associates Research Paper, which has informed the current application. 8.1.7. There may be heritage mitigation suggested by submitters through the hearing that may assist Council to identify if further mitigation is appropriate to further off-set the permanent loss of the heritage values to local community. If appropriate, these can be reflected in draft conditions of consent. 8.1.8. In balancing the positive aspects of the proposal with the negative effects associated with the loss of this local heritage item, I have concluded the proposed mitigation will provide information to the wider public about the heritage building and the Veldwijk family. The external interpretive boards, recording of the building, and the social/historic association of the family with Cambridge and the site will be able to be enjoyed by the travelling public from the footpath and in a documented history in the Cambridge library. 8.1.9. Overall I consider the mitigation of the loss of the heritage values resulting from the demolition of this building will have a minor effect on the Cambridge community. 8.2

Landscape/Visual Effects and Urban Design 8.2.1. The application assesses the existing environment, and offers the Cambridge Town Concept Plan description of the Cambridge Residential Character Area (refer section 4.4.3), part of which is reproduced here: Cambridge’s residential area is characterised by its established low density, predominantly single storey residential character and wide open spaces (sometimes tree lined) with Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 18

footpaths on one side and grass verges on the other. Properties are generally well vegetated and contain varying street setbacks and boundary treatments including open yards, fences and vegetation. This consistent street planting along many of the streets screens the range of housing styles and give this area a sense of permanence. The area contains a number of buildings and structures of historical interest….” CTCP section 3.2 pg. 7. 8.2.2. The building will be two storey despite the surrounding area containing predominantly single storey. The Cambridge Mews Motel directly opposite and other buildings on Hamilton Road are two storey. The 9.0m height limit in the zone anticipates two storied dwellings. The applicant contends that despite most of the buildings in the vicinity being single storey, it does not mean that a two storey building will be incongruous or unanticipated. 8.2.3. Council’s landscape and urban design specialists conclude the current proposal appropriately incorporates a number of positive design changes and aspects to address the majority of their previous concerns around landscaping and the appropriateness of the building’s various elevations. There is one outstanding matter regarding the bulk and mass of architectural features on the Hamilton Road façade – in particular the heavy geometric configuration. Further architectural relief and variation along the Hamilton Road façade is required to be more in keeping with the residential appearance and character of the surrounding area. The specialist assessment has made design recommendations to mitigate this effect, but these are not supported by the applicant. 8.2.4. In summary, in terms of residential character and visual effects, the Hamilton Road façade remains an overbearing design element. Further adjustment of the Hamilton Road façade is recommended in the draft conditions of consent for the building to be considered compatible in its location. This could be achieved by stepping the central pavilion similar to its south end and creating variation of the central pavilion façade so it appears slightly different from the outside pavilions or vice versa. 8.3

Traffic Effects 8.3.1. The application included a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by KR Consult Ltd. Council commissioned Beca Ltd to review the TIA, and it was determined the assessment of the traffic effects was reasonable. From a traffic hierarchy perspective, it is appropriate the site gains its access from Hall Street (a local road), due to the expected traffic increase on Hamilton Road (a major arterial) in the future. 8.3.2. Traffic generation, car parking and manoeuvring on the site meets the requirements of the PDP for the proposed activity, and it is expected to have only a minor effect on current traffic patterns. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 19

8.3.3. In recognition of matters raised by submitters regarding overflow parking, draft conditions have been recommended which are intended to address the potential problem from overflow parking on the adjacent streets. It is also recommended the consent conditions are reviewed within 6 – 12 months to assess how effective on-site parking is and identify any issues that may need to be mitigated/managed. Further monitoring of the parking and traffic effects of the Hotel will occur annually as required. 8.3.4. Overall, the traffic effects of the proposed activity, being an increase in traffic generation on a residential street and the adequacy of the parking area to accommodate the parking demand of the activity are considered to be less than minor and can be appropriately mitigated by draft conditions of consent. 8.4

Noise and other amenity effects 8.4.1. An acoustic assessment of the development has been undertaken by Design Acoustics, and the assessment incorporates the noise sensitive activity levels agreed between the applicant and the NZ Transport Agency for motels/hotels adjacent to state highways. The assessment concludes the proposal is able to comply with all but one of the residential noise standards, and suggests the 40dBA (Leq) noise limit for Sunday/Public holidays 8.00am – 6.00pm should more appropriately reflect a 50dBA limit. 8.4.2. There is the potential for adverse noise effects to be generated by the proposed activity in particular from increased vehicle movements and the frequent arrival and departure of vehicles at any time of the day or night due to the nature of the activity. However, the design of the building is such that there are no spaces for congregation directly adjoining the boundaries and social spaces are internalised, which mitigates potential noise effects from a non-residential activity. 8.4.3. As the proposal is considered a ‘noise sensitive activity’ (hotels and motels), the applicant has agreed on a stricter 35dBA LAeq24hr internal noise limit for bedrooms and 40dBA LAeq24hr for all other habitable rooms with the New Zealand Transport Agency. 8.4.4. Council’s Environmental Health Officer recommends a number of draft noise conditions which will not only restrict the noise levels from the proposal, but include a noise management plan to ensure potential noise sources are identified and managed (such as the late/early arrival of guests, use of the court yard, placement of air conditioning units and monitoring their noise emissions performance. The actual noise from the site will then be measured and reviewed within three months of the site is operating, and any potential breaches in noise standards will need to be rectified by the consent holder.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 20

8.4.5. Based on the conclusions made by Council’s Environmental Health Officer, I consider the noise generated by the operation of the proposal will be less than minor. Other amenity issues 8.4.6. The applicant has designed external lighting of the car-parking area so that light spill will not exceed 10 lux when measured (horizontally or vertically) at or within the boundary of any other site. 8.4.7. Waste management will comply with the requirements of the PDP, and be stored/managed on site appropriately and removed by a suitable commercial waste management contractor. 8.4.8. Privacy and overshadowing - The proposed building while of a much larger scale than the existing dwelling will comply with the height, height to boundary and yard setback requirements on all boundaries, including the western elevation. Bedrooms F-11/F-12/F-13 typically orientate away from the neighbouring site, with F-12 have a very limited aspect to the adjacent residential site (less than 10% of the western elevation). At the entry and seating side of the unit (entry and circulation part of the room, doesn’t have a study desk) 8.4.9. Overall I consider the effect of the proposal on these remaining amenity issues to be less than minor. 8.5

Overall Assessment of Effects 8.5.1. Based on the advice of Council’s heritage specialist, the loss of the heritage building results in potentially more than minor effects. It is impossible to completely mitigate the loss of a heritage building. To off-set some of this loss, the applicant has offered a number of mitigation measures which have been included as draft conditions of consent. In balancing the permanent loss of the heritage building on the Cambridge community and the residential character area, with the proposed mitigation offered by the applicant, it is considered the effect of this loss is of a minor nature subject to appropriate draft conditions of consent. 8.5.2. Turning to the proposed Hotel, it is my opinion that the residential amenity effects associated with the proposal (such as traffic, noise, privacy and daylighting amenity) have been addressed in the site layout and building design and are less than minor. 8.5.3. In respect of the effect of the proposed Hotel on the residential character and amenity of the neighbourhood, Council’s landscape and urban design specialists conclude that while there are many positive aspects about the external appearance and design on the building, its orientation towards the Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 21

carpark and bulk/massing along the Hamilton Road façade is of a scale that is not in keeping with the residential appearance and character of the surrounding area. Further design changes to mitigate this more than minor effect have been recommended in the draft conditions of consent. Subject to acceptable design changes being made to the Hamilton Road façade to mitigate this effect, I consider the effect of the proposal on the Cambridge Residential Character Area to be minor. 8.6

Section 104(1)(b) Assessment - Proposed District Plan

Strategic Policy Framework Objective - Environmental and heritage protection and recreation values 1.3.4 To ensure that development and subdivision activities maintain and where possible enhance the environmental, heritage and recreational values of the District. Policy - Management of adverse effects 1.3.4.1 To ensure that development and subdivision is undertaken in a manner that: d) Protects listed heritage items; Policy - Environmental and heritage protection 1.3.4.2 To consider additional development and subdivision opportunities in circumstances where: a) Significant natural areas, located within the indigenous forest corridors, are permanently protected; and b) Significant heritage sites and places are permanently protected. Comment 8.6.1. The development proposed for the site will permanently remove a Category C scheduled building. Mitigation measures proposed by the applicant include reusing part of the existing be-spoke brick fence and recording the dwelling and the social/historical community connection the builder and dwelling have with the Cambridge Township through the use of on-site interpretive boards. The proposal does not protect the scheduled heritage building, and is therefore inconsistent with Objective 1.3.4 and its policies. Objective - Energy and resource efficiency, design, character and amenity 1.3.6 To ensure that developments and subdivisions maintain and where possible enhance key elements of character and incorporate design and sustainability principles. Policy - Urban design, character and amenity 1.3.6.1 Urban developments and subdivisions shall: a) Maintain and where possible enhance key elements of character through building and infrastructure design, and the layout of sites; and Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 22

b) Actively incorporate sustainability principles within the design and layout of the development and subdivision as well as the infrastructure servicing the development. Comment 8.6.2. The new building has been architecturally designed to maximize the building footprint on the site. This has resulted in the building orienting away from the two residential character streets it fronts, and towards the carpark at the rear of the building. While the building incorporates modern architectural features and CPTED principles, it does not respond to the existing character streets. The building’s layout as a result turns its ‘back’ to Hamilton Road and presents a very non-residential side in an established residential character area. The application is silent on design and sustainability aspects. I consider the proposal is not consistent with Objective 1.3.6 and its policy unless the application is amended as per the adjustments of the Hamilton Road façade recommended in the draft conditions of consent. Residential Zone Objective - Key elements of residential character 2.3.1 To maintain and enhance the existing elements of the Residential Zone that give each town its own character. Policy - Cambridge 2.3.1.1 To maintain and enhance Cambridge’s character by: (a) Maintaining the grid layout that provides long vistas down roads; and (b) Providing for wide grassed road verges that enable sufficient space for mature trees; and (e) Providing for development that is of a low density, one to two storeys, and set back from road frontages to enable sufficient open space for the planting of trees and private gardens; and (f) Maintaining the mix of villa, cottage and bungalow type housing within the identified character clusters. Comment 8.6.3. The proposed building does not impact on the established grid layout, or wide grassed and planted verges that are typical of Hamilton Rd/Hall St, and proposes 2 additional (large) street trees for continuity along the site’s frontage, and landscaping within the 7.5m front yard setback. It does introduce a 2-storey building amongst a number of single storey buildings, but within the 9.0m height limit for the Zone. Despite being set back the minimum 7.5m distance required on Hall St and Hamilton Road frontages, the 615m2 building presents a large massing and bulk in an area otherwise characterised by sites with more generous front yards (12-13m), single storey and buildings which reflect a residential scale and character. I consider the proposal is inconsistent with Objective 2.3.1 and its policy as it doesn’t maintain those existing elements currently displayed on the site which contribute to the existing residential character in the immediate neighbourhood. If the application is amended as per the adjustments of the Hamilton Road façade recommended in the Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 23

draft conditions of consent, it would be considered more compatible with the surrounding environment. Objective - Neighbourhood amenity and safety 2.3.2 To maintain amenity values and enhance safety in the Residential Zone. Policy – Building setback: road boundary 2.3.2.1 All buildings shall be designed and setback from roads in a manner which: (a) Maintains the predominant building setback within the neighbourhood; and (b) Allows sufficient space for the establishment of gardens and mature trees on the site; and (c) Accentuates the dwelling on the site; and (d) Provides for passive surveillance to roads and avoids windowless walls to the street. Policy - Building setback: Character Street 2.3.2.2 To maintain the existing character of character streets by having a consistent building setback. Policies - Building setback: side boundaries 2.3.2.3 To maintain spaciousness when viewed from the road, provide opportunities for planting, provide a degree of privacy, maintain sunlight and daylight, provide ongoing access to the rear of the site and enable building maintenance from within the site by maintaining a consistent setback between buildings on different sites. 2.3.2.4 A reduced setback from a side boundary may be acceptable where it: (a) Assists in retaining existing mature trees on the site; or (b) Enables the more effective development of the site because of on-site topographic constraints; or (c) Is located within a greenfield subdivision, where a reduced or nil setback on one side is offset by an increased setback on the other side. Provided that there is no loss of privacy, sunlight or daylight on adjoining properties, and where sufficient area is maintained on site for outdoor living, and the building does not unduly dominate outdoor living areas on adjoining sites. Comment 8.6.4. The proposed building provides sufficient space for the establishment of gardens and trees by meeting the required setbacks from the road and neighbouring properties, as can be seen in the attached Landscaping Plan. A positive aspect of the building’s design is that it allows for passive surveillance to Hamilton Road. While the building meets the required setback of 7.5m it does not maintain the predominant building setback (12-13m) in the immediate vicinity of the site sought by Policy 2.3.2.1(a) and 2.3.2.2. This is primarily due to the carpark at the rear of the building ‘pushing’ the building to the limit of the front yard setback. While the building achieves the minimum set back of 7.5m from Hamilton Road and Hall Street (both defined as character streets in the PDP), the scale of the building and the design and uniformity Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 24

of the Hamilton Road façade presents an imposing and overbearing element within the character area. I consider the proposal is inconsistent with Policies 2.3.2.1(a) and 2.3.2.2 regarding the predominant building setback and maintenance of spaciousness from the road. I consider the proposal is consistent with 2.3.2.1 (b) and (d) in that the internal room layout and design provides for privacy on adjacent sites, maintenance of sunlight and opportunity for passive surveillance of the adjacent streets from an elevated position. Policies - Site coverage and permeable surfaces 2.3.2.6 To ensure that all sites have sufficient open space to provide for landscaping, outdoor activities, storage, on-site stormwater disposal, parking, and vehicle manoeuvring by maintaining a maximum site coverage requirement for buildings in the Residential Zone. 2.3.2.7 Maintain a proportion of each site in permeable surfaces such as lawn and gardens, in order to ensure there is sufficient capacity to enable the on-site disposal of stormwater. In the Cambridge North Structure Plan Area increased standards apply because of the difficulty of disposing of stormwater in this location. Comment 8.6.5. The proposal results in complying building site coverage of 40% (612m2), however only achieves 29% permeable surfacing (instead of 40%) due to the cumulative effect of the large building footprint and expansive area of carparking (640m2) associated with the proposal. This limits the area of permeable surfacing and landscaping to the perimeter of the site (the front yards, a portion of the 2.5m side yard, and an isolated area of planting at the entrance to the car park). Stormwater runoff from the site will be directed to Council’s reticulated system in Hall Street. Despite the large impermeable area, the proposal is able to manage its on-site stormwater, traffic and manoeuvring as required by the PDP. Policy - Maintaining low ambient noise environment 2.3.2.9 To ensure that noise emissions and vibration from all activities, including construction, are consistent with the low ambient noise environment anticipated in the Residential Zone. Policies - Signs 2.3.2.12 To maintain the residential character and amenity of the Residential Zone, by avoiding signs except for temporary signs and small scale signs associated with a home occupation undertaken on the site where the sign is located. 2.3.2.13 Signs not related to the site, including billboards, are not consistent with the character of the Residential Zone and shall be avoided. 2.3.2.14 To minimise short-term effects on residential character and amenity by managing the location, size, number and type of temporary signs.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 25

2.3.2.15 Signs that are illuminated moving or flashing, or are likely to create a visual hazard or interfere with the safe and efficient use of roads shall be avoided. Policies - Safety and design 2.3.2.19 To enhance the safety of residential neighbourhoods through site layouts and building designs that incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. 2.3.2.20 To ensure that passive surveillance is provided to roads, reserves and walkways. Comment 8.6.6. The acoustic assessment and review indicates the existing residential low noise ambience will be maintained by the proposed Hotel. A noise management plan and monitoring of its effectiveness is recommended to enable a review of potential noise generators such as air conditioning units, late/early arrival and departure of guests and the use of the outdoor paved areas is managed to ensure residential noise amenity is maintained. 8.6.7. 3.24m2 signage is proposed to advertise the site. An additional area of historic interpretive board signage is proposed to record the lost heritage aspects of the site. The signage is not considered to be visually intrusive or adversely affect the amenity of the Residential Zone due to their simple design and location within the height envelope of the fence. The signs will not create a visual or road safety hazard. I consider the proposal is consistent with the above noise, signage and safety and design policies. Objective - On-site amenity values 2.3.3 To maintain and enhance amenity values within and around dwellings and sites in the Residential Zone through the location, layout and design of dwellings and buildings. Policies - Building setback from rear boundaries 2.3.3.1 Buildings should be setback from rear boundaries in order to provide for the privacy of adjoining properties and to not overly dominate outdoor living areas on adjoining sites. 2.3.3.2 To enable the construction of buildings up to and on rear site boundaries in circumstances where there is no loss of privacy, sunlight or daylight or noise effects on adjoining properties, and where sufficient area is maintained on site for outdoor living, and the building does not unduly dominate outdoor living areas on adjoining sites. Policy - Daylight 2.3.3.3 To maintain adequate daylight and enable opportunities for passive solar gain by providing for the progressive reduction in the height of buildings the closer they are located to a boundary (except a road boundary). Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 26

Policy - Outdoor living area 2.3.3.4 Each dwelling on a site shall have a usable and easily accessible outdoor living area that is positioned to receive sun throughout the year, and is accessed from a living area of the dwelling, provided that this policy does not apply to compact housing and retirement village accommodation. Policy - Maximum building length 2.3.3.5 Long building lines are not consistent with residential character and should be avoided. Buildings that are well modulated with architectural detail shall be preferred. Comment 8.6.8. The site provides a good level of on-site amenity for visitors of the motel. The building length has been broken up sufficiently and provides appropriate undulation and architectural design on three of the four elevations. I consider the proposal is consistent with the above on-site objective and policies. Objective - Comprehensive design and development 2.3.5 To ensure that developments are comprehensively designed, incorporate urban design and CPTED principles, are co-ordinated with infrastructure provision, and integrated with the transportation network. Policy - Comprehensive design of in-fill housing, compact housing, retirement village accommodation and associated care facilities, rest homes, and visitor accommodation. To ensure that in-fill housing, compact housing, retirement village accommodation and associated care facilities, rest homes and visitor accommodation are comprehensively designed by: (a) Ensuring that developments effectively relate to the street, existing buildings, and adjoining developments in the neighbourhood; and (b) Ensuring that in the Cambridge Residential Character Area new dwellings between existing dwellings on the site and the road shall be avoided; and (c) Avoiding long continuous lengths of wall; and (d) Maximising the potential for passive solar gain; and (e) Providing for sufficient private space for the reasonable recreation, service and storage needs of residents; and (f) Retaining existing trees and landscaping within the development where this is practical; and (g) Where appropriate provide for multi-modal transport options and provide for links with existing road, pedestrian and cycleways; and (h) Incorporating CPTED principles; and (i) Addressing reverse sensitivity effects; and (j) Mitigating adverse effects related to traffic generation, access, noise, vibration, and light spill; and (k) Being appropriately serviced and co-ordinated with infrastructure provision and integrated with the transport network. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 27

Comment 8.6.9. The assessments confirm there are many positive aspects about the external appearance and design of the building and on-site amenity. The design has considered and incorporated CPTED principles, reverse sensitivity effects, the mitigation of amenity related effects of additional traffic and noise, and the proposed landscaping to help soften the visual effect. However the building’s orientation towards the carpark and bulk/massing along the Hamilton Road façade is of a scale that is not in keeping with the residential appearance and character of the surrounding area. Moreover the large area of impermeable surfaces accentuates the non-residential nature of the proposal and contributes to a reduction in residential character and amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood. While there are aspects of the above objective and policy the application responds well to, it is concluded the building in its current form does not respond well to the street, or adjoining residential developments within the neighbourhood unless adjustments are made to the façade of the building. Objective - Non-residential activities 2.3.6 To restrict the establishment of non-residential activities in the Residential Zone, except for visitor accommodation, activities within listed heritage items, areas specifically identified on structure plans for this purpose, and those activities that provide for the health and wellbeing of the community, and have a functional and compelling need to locate within a Residential Zone. Policy - Maintain residential function 2.3.6.1 To maintain the Residential Zone for residential activities by ensuring that: (a) Industrial activities and commercial activities are avoided within the Residential Zone; and (b) Non-residential activities are not dominant within a residential block. Policy - Non-residential activities 2.3.6.3 Buildings and activities associated with non-residential activities should be of a scale and design that: (a) Maintains residential character including the scale and design of buildings and their location on the site; and (b) Provides for on-site parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas; and (c) Mitigates adverse effects related to traffic generation, access, noise, vibration, and light spill, to the extent that they do not result in adverse effects on residential character and amenity and the surrounding transport network. Policy - Visitor accommodation in limited circumstances 2.3.6.6 Visitor accommodation may be appropriate where a development is comprehensively designed and the scale and design of the development enhances town character; and where site specific issues such as on-site servicing and transport related effects are addressed. Comment Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 28

8.6.10. The building has a volume that is larger than the houses in the surrounding residential neighbourhood. This has been possible due to the lot size of this corner site and the greater proportion of building footprint and impermeable area proposed in the development. The result is a visual dominance of the building on the site edges and a corresponding loss of integration between the buildings, open space and vegetation that would be achieved by a greater variation and modulation of built form. I consider the application is not inconsistent with Policy 2.3.6.1, and Policy 2.3.6.3(a) and (c) relating to the management of on-site effects, however I consider the proposal is inconsistent with Policy 2.3.6.3(a) and 2.3.6.6 in relation to maintaining residential character and the scale of the development enhancing town character. Objective - Protection of heritage items 22.3.1 To protect the District’s heritage items from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Policy - Providing protection for listed heritage items 22.3.1.1 To protect the heritage values associated with heritage items, (Appendix N1) so that the national, regional or local significance of the item is retained. The basis of the significance of an item is wide ranging and can be its built features or the role that an item has played in the community over time. The categories that apply are: (c) Category C: Community Significance - Local significance heritage items are of local importance, contribute to the community’s history and are noteworthy as community heritage places. Comment 8.6.11. The proposed demolition of the Category C building is not consistent with the heritage objectives and priorities of the PDP and will result in an almost total loss of the in-situ heritage values associated with the building. The dwelling also contributes to the existing Cambridge Residential Character Area, by its characteristic deep front yard and single storey residence which is typical along the Hamilton Road approach to Cambridge. 8.6.12. The applicant acknowledges the contribution this house and George Veldwijk has made to Cambridge, and has proposed mitigation to partially off-set the loss of these values. In balancing the positive mitigation aspects offered by the applicant with the negative effects associated with the loss of this local heritage item, I have concluded the proposed mitigation subject to draft conditions of consent will provide information to the wider public about the heritage building and the Veldwijk family. I consider the proposal is not inconsistent with Policy 22.3.1.1(c). 8.6.13. There may be heritage mitigation suggested by submitters through the hearing that may assist Council to identify if further mitigation is appropriate to further off-set the permanent loss of the heritage values to Community. If appropriate, these can be reflected in draft conditions of consent. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 29

Objectives and Policies Conclusion 8.6.14. Overall, the proposed Hotel has been comprehensively designed and incorporates a high degree of on-site amenity. I consider the proposal to demolish a heritage building and replace it with visitor accommodation within the Cambridge Residential Character Area is inconsistent with a number of objectives and policies that seek to maintain heritage values, the Cambridge residential character scale and amenity of the Cambridge area, and particularly the relationship of the building to the street, its bulk/scale and maintaining the predominant setback. 8.6.15. The external interpretive boards, retention of a section of the be-spoke brick work in the existing fence, recording of the heritage building, and recording the social/historic association of the Veldwijk family with Cambridge and the building on this site, will enable the history to be enjoyed by the travelling public, both from the footpath and in a documented history in the Cambridge library. 8.6.16. Subject to further external design changes and landscaping recommended by draft conditions of consent to assist the proposed building to better integrate with the surrounding character area, I consider the effect of the new building on these residential character and amenity issues can be mitigated to have a no more than minor effect. 8.7

Section 104(1)(c) - Provisions of Other Statutory Planning Documents The Waikato Regional Policy Statement

8.7.1. The Heritage Section of the Proposed Policy Statement has the following Objectives and Policies; Objective 3.17 Historic and cultural heritage Sites, structures, landscapes, areas or places of historic and cultural heritage are protected, maintained or enhanced in order to retain the identity and integrity of the Waikato region’s and New Zealand’s history and culture. Policy 10.1 Managing historic and cultural heritage Provide for the collaborative, consistent and integrated management of historic and cultural heritage resources. Improve understanding, information sharing and cooperative planning to manage or protect heritage resources across the region. Policy 10.3 Effects of development on historic and cultural heritage Manage subdivision, use and development to give recognition to historic and cultural heritage and to integrate it with development where appropriate. Comment Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 30

8.7.2. Under the Resource Management Act, the protection of historic and cultural heritage from inappropriate use, subdivision and development is a matter of national importance. The proposed development does not protect the heritage resources of the locality and contradicts these Objectives and Policies of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS). While the proposal results in a loss (rather than protection) of the heritage item, mitigation opportunities exist to assist with the off-set of the loss of these heritage values to the Cambridge community. The Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River (Waikato Tainui Raupatu (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Act 2012 8.7.3. The Waikato Tainui Raupatu (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 was enacted in May 2010 with the purpose of implementing co-management of the Waikato River. The overarching purpose of the Act is to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations. It also is designed to respond to issues concerning the rivers degradation, its relationship to communities and people, including tangata whenua, the cumulative effects of physical interventions, and uses and subsurface hydrological changes. The Vision and Strategy forms part of the RPS and the PDP. The Vision and Strategy is relevant to this application because the site is within the Cambridge township catchment which discharges stormwater to the Waikato River. 8.7.4. It is my opinion that the proposal is not inconsistent with this Vision and Strategy because it will not result in any change to the existing stormwater discharge from the existing urban area within the Cambridge stormwater network. Future Proof 8.7.5. The site is located in an established part of the Cambridge Township and does not challenge any Future Proof outcomes. Waikato Tainui Environmental Plan 8.7.6. The Waikato-Tainui Environmental Plan (WTEP) was published in August 2013 and is considered to be an Iwi Management Plan under s.35A of the RMA. The overarching purpose of the WTEP is to provide a map or pathway that will return the WaikatoTainui rohe to the modern day equivalent of the environmental state that it was when Kiingi Taaawhiao composed his maimai aroha. As noted above, the site is within the Waikato River catchment. The applicant has provided a comprehensive assessment of the relevant Section D objectives of the Plan concluding the application is consistent with the WTEP, with which I concur.

9

PART 2 MATTERS

9.1

Section 104 states that when considering an application for a resource consent, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2 of the Act, have regard to – Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 31

a) b) c) d) 9.2

Any actual and potential effects of allowing the activity; and Any relevant provisions of a plan or proposed plan; and Any relevant provisions of a regional or national policy statement; and Any other matter considered relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

Section 104B states that when considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity, a consent authority— a) may grant or refuse the application; and b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

Comment 9.3 The proposal has been assessed in regards to the effects of the activity on the environment and its consistency with the objectives and policies of the PDP. 9.4

The proposal to demolish a Category C heritage building is not consistent with many of the objectives and policies in the PDP in relation to the protection of heritage items as identified above.

9.5

The proposed Hotel incorporates many positive design aspects and is generally consistent with the objectives and policies relating to on-site amenity for guests and can manage its effects relating to noise and traffic appropriate for a Residential Zone. In its current form however it is inconsistent with regard to the scale/bulk and Hamilton Road façade, its integration with the Cambridge Residential Character Area and the contribution the building makes to the well-established residential amenity values of the surrounding area. However subject to further design changes and landscaping recommended by draft conditions of consent, I consider the effect of the new building on these residential character and amenity issues can be mitigated to have a no more than minor effect.

9.6

All considerations under s104 are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out the purpose and principles of the legislation.

Section 5 – ‘to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources’. Comment 9.7 The proposal is not considered to result in the sustainable use of an existing heritage resource, which will be destroyed. However the proposal will result in an alternative use of the land and infrastructure resources available at the site’s boundary for an appropriate alternative use. Section 6 – ‘matters of national importance’ Comment 9.8 Section 6 requires consent authorities to recognise and provide for a number of matters of national importance in exercising powers and functions under the RMA. Section 6(f) specifically identifies “the protection of historic heritage from Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 32

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development” as a matter of national importance. The demolition of the historic building to make way for redevelopment of the site for Hotel purposes results in a permanent loss of the heritage values on this site, and an irreplaceable loss of the contribution the heritage building has on the residential character and amenity of the neighbourhood. The applicant acknowledges the contribution this house and George Veldwijk has made to Cambridge, and has proposed mitigation to partially off-set the loss of these values. In balancing the positive aspects of the proposal with the negative effects associated with the loss of this local heritage item, I have concluded the proposed mitigation will provide information to the wider public about the heritage building and the Veldwijk family. The external interpretive boards, recording of the building, and the social/historic association of the family with Cambridge and the site will be able to be enjoyed by the travelling public from the footpath and in a documented history in the Cambridge library. Section 7 – ‘Other matters’ Comment 9.9 The application, subject to appropriate conditions, is generally in accordance with section 7, with the exception of subsections (c) – the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. The proposed hotel has the potential to undermine existing amenity values. The amenity currently enjoyed along Hall Street and Hamilton Roads has been created by predominantly low level buildings (typically single storey), with deep setbacks and well established/mature planting that gives the neighbourhood a strong residential character. There are many positive aspects about the external appearance and design of the building. However the building’s orientation towards the carpark and bulk/massing along the Hamilton Road façade is of a scale that is not in keeping with the intended residential appearance and character of the surrounding area as defined in the residential objectives and policies. The proposal inserts a non-residential building that orients itself away from its dual character street frontages, and disrupts the predominant building setback for Hamilton Road in particular. The draft consent conditions recommend further mitigation to this Hamilton Road façade to achieve greater integration with the existing residential character and amenity of the surrounding area. Section 8 – ‘Treaty of Waitangi’ Comment 9.10 There is nothing in the proposal that would conflict with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The proposal was referred to Nga Iwi Toopu O Waipa who had no comment to make on the application. Conclusion 9.11 Overall, having regard to the actual and potential effects of the proposal, consideration of the objectives and policies of the relevant statutory documents and the Purpose and Principles of the Resource Management Act 1991, the proposal to demolish a Category C heritage building and replace it with a new Hotel can be Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 33

suitably accommodated on the site subject to further external design changes and mitigation as recommended in the draft conditions of consent. 9.12

Overall it is my opinion that the proposal in its current form is consistent with a number of PDP objectives and policies relating to the management of on-site amenity effects and displays a high quality of design. The proposal is inconsistent with the RPS and PDP objectives regarding the preservation of district/regional heritage resources. The proposal is inconsistent with many PDP objectives and policies that seek to maintain established residential character areas, particularly where non-residential activities are proposed in these areas. However the proposal subject to the inclusion of draft conditions which required appropriate further mitigation along the Hamilton Road façade, preservation of part of the bespoke brick fence, and comprehensive recording of the dwelling, and the Veldwijk Family’s relationship with the site, the above effects of the proposal can be mitigated to a level where they are no more than minor.

9.13

On that basis, Council is able to approve the proposal under section 104B of the RMA.

10

CONCLUSION

10.1

The proposal, to demolish a heritage item and to construct a hotel on the site at 17 Hamilton Road has been assessed above in terms of the potential effects on the environment and it consistency with the objectives and policies of the PDP.

10.2

While the proposal to demolish the dwelling results in a permanent loss of heritage values on the site, the applicant has acknowledged the importance of providing a permanent record of the contribution the house, George Veldwijk and his family have made to Cambridge which will partially off-set the loss of the local heritage values. There may be heritage mitigation suggested by submitters through the hearing that may assist Council to identify if further mitigation is appropriate to further off-set the permanent loss of the heritage values to Community. If appropriate, these can be reflected in draft conditions of consent.

10.3

In summary, I have balanced the support for visitor accommodation in Cambridge, the positive design aspects of the building, and the heritage mitigation offered by the applicant, with the advice of Council’s urban design and heritage specialists regarding the effect on residential character, amenity and loss of heritage, and the matters raised by submitters.

10.4

It is my opinion the loss of heritage values associated with this site, while regrettable for the Cambridge community, can be appropriately mitigated to record and re-tell the history of the heritage building on the site and the influence the Veldwijk family had on Dutch history in NZ and the Cambridge community generally. Further it is also my opinion additional design of the Hamilton Road façade is required to more appropriately integrate the building into the surrounding residential character and reflect the residential nature of the character street. Draft conditions of consent have been recommended to incorporate these matters. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 34

10.5

In conclusion, having had regard to the relevant matters set out in section 104(1) and section 104B of the RMA, it is considered that the land use application be approved with appropriate conditions.

11

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That a)

The report of Melissa Slatter – Consultant Planner be received; and

b)

In consideration of Sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waipa District Council approves the land use application LU/0131/16 by Windsor Trust to demolish a Category C heritage building in the Waipa District Plan and to construct a visitor accommodation the property at 17 Hamilton Road, legally described as Pt Allotment 547 Town of Cambridge East (SA1208/297) subject to the following draft conditions;

General 1)

That the activity must be generally consistent with the application provided to Council on 4 May 2016, being the date application was received and subsequent information and plans submitted on 23 May 2016 and 12 August 2016, unless otherwise altered by the conditions of the consent. A copy of the approved plan is attached.

Roading 2)

The consent holder shall upgrade the vehicle crossing to Allot 547 Cambridge East on Hall Street. The crossing is to be constructed to Council’s standards as set out in the Waipa District Development and Subdivision Manual 2012. All work is to be completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Engineering, and shall be at the consent holder’s expense. The following issues shall also be addressed: a) The crossing shall be constructed in accordance with TS306 and TS310; and b) The entrance shall be formed with concrete in accordance with TS310; and c) The crossing shall be located on Hall Street as indicated on the application plans; and d) All work shall be completed by a Council approved contractor.

3)

The existing entrance to Allot 547 Cambridge East located on Hamilton Road shall be permanently closed to vehicular traffic and the drainage and berm reinstated to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Development Engineering at the consent holder’s expense. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 35

4)

All guest parking shall be managed within the site boundaries. There shall be no overflow parking on Hall Street.

Car park 5)

Construction plans for the carparking area shall be designed and submitted to Council for acceptance prior to carrying out any construction work required by this consent. All work associated with the car parking shall be designed, constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Council’s Manager Development Engineering, at the consent holders expense, and shall be in accordance with Council’s standards as set out in the Waipa District Development and Subdivision Manual 2012. The submitted plans shall include: a) Pavement design – based on testing of existing ground; b) Test results of in-situ ground; c) Disposal of stormwater including all structures and erosion control; d) Surface finish in either concrete or hotmix; and e) Car parks to be marked.

Quality assurance certificates 6)

Quality Assurance Certificates (Appendix 4 in the Waipa District Development and Subdivision Manual), from a suitably qualified and experienced professional shall be completed, signed and submitted to Council’s Manager Development Engineering for acceptance. The quality assurance certificates shall include: a) b) c)

The pavement & construction of the car parking; and The drainage of the car parking; and Any structures associated with the car parking.

Noise 7)

The Hotel and associated use and activities (including operational machinery noise) shall be conducted and buildings located designed and used to ensure that they do not exceed the following noise limits at the boundary of the site: a) Monday to Saturday – 7.00am to 10.00pm 50dBA (Leq) b) Sunday and Public Holidays 8.00am to 6.00pm 50dBA (Leq) c) Al all other times 40dBA (Leq) d) Night time 10.00pm to 7.00am single noise event 70dBA (Lmax)

8)

The Hotel shall be constructed to meet noise performance standards for noise from traffic (from Hamilton Road) that will not exceed 35dBA Leq (24hr) in bedrooms and 40dBA Leq (24hr) for other habitable rooms in accordance with the satisfactory sound levels recommended by Australian and New Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 36

Zealand Standard AS/NZ21197:2000 Acoustics – Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors. 9)

The close boarded 1.8m high timber fence to be constructed on the western boundary shall be designed and constructed to achieve the acoustic equivalence of the brick wall originally proposed in the application. Certification from a suitably qualified acoustic engineer shall be provided with the building consent application for the Hotel to demonstrate the proposed timber fence will achieve the acoustic equivalence to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory.

10)

A noise monitoring and management plan shall be prepared and submitted to Council’s Environmental Services Team Leader for approval prior to lodging building consent for the proposed Hotel. The noise monitoring management plan shall include the duration of the monitoring period, strategies to comply with Condition 7 from the potential noise generated from external noise sources on the site such as of early morning guest arrival/departures, and late night guest arrival/departures, late night use of the paved outdoor courtyard, and appliances such as air-conditioning units, ducted ventilation, and the onsite Laundromats.

11)

Noise monitoring shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified professional within 3 months and 6 months of the Hotel operating. The results of the monitoring shall be provided to Council’s Senior Enforcement Officer within 14 days of the monitoring being undertaken, together with any mitigation required to comply with Condition 7 in the event any measured noise results in non-compliance with Condition 7.

Lighting 12)

The maximum level of light spill from artificial lighting from any activity shall be no greater than 10 lux measured horizontally or vertically at or within the boundary of any other site or road; and the artificial lighting shall be conducted so that direct or indirect illumination does not create a nuisance to occupants of adjoining or nearby sites.

Odour, smoke, fumes or dust 13)

All site preparation, construction activities and ongoing operation of the Hotel shall not produce any objectionable odour, smoke, fumes or dust at or beyond the site boundary.

Easements 14)

The consent holder shall arrange to create 3-metre minimum width sewer easement in gross, placed centrally over any existing or proposed Council reticulation which will be located within Allot 547 Cambridge East, and Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 37

arrange for Council’s Solicitor to register this easement on the new title/s. The consent holder shall meet all costs incurred. Note: Easements for pipes shall be placed centrally over the pipe location and shall be contained wholly within the lots. Urban Design 15)

The Hamilton Road façade shall incorporate features that break up the uniformity of the three pavilions by creating a feature in the central pavilion (such as stepping the central pavilion back, or matching the rear elevation with the front elevation) to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding residential character.

16)

Amended design drawings and elevations which respond to Condition 15 shall be provided to Council prior to lodgement of a building consent application for the proposed Hotel. The drawings shall be reviewed by Council’s urban design specialist. Any amendments required by the specialist will be subject to the approval of Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory. Note: Any building consent application for the proposed Hotel shall reflect the design changes to the Hamilton Road façade approved in Condition 15.

Landscaping 17)

The consent holder shall provide a landscaping plan for approval by Council’s Consents Team Leader within three months of the commencement of this consent. The landscaping plan shall be designed in general accordance with the plans submitted with the application on 4 May 2016 and further information received on 12 August 2016, subject to the following amendments: a) The landscape plan shall be amended to reflect the landscape treatment shown on the visual simulations provided with the application; b) The two trees located between the Hamilton Road façade pavilions shall be a large deciduous type tree reaching the height of the roof. At the time of planting, the trees shall be no less that pb150 grade. c) Two additional street trees at 300L grade (Maples) shall be planted within the Hamilton Road berm, to provide a continuation of the existing street trees. (The location of these trees shall be agreed with Council’s development engineer to ensure they do not create a road side hazard). These trees shall be plated within the first planting season following the date of this consent. d) The landscape plan shall be amended to reflect the removal of every second brick column along the boundary fence and its replacement with a narrow steel column. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 38

e) A new footpath shall be constructed from the rear entrance of the Hotel to the existing iron gate within the existing brick fence on the Hamilton Road/Hall Street corner. f) The location of the proposed interpretive heritage signage required by Condition 21 below. 18)

The landscaping plan shall identify the location, species and height of all plants/vegetation.

19)

The consent holder shall, within six months of the construction of the Hotel, provide landscaping in the areas shown on, and in accordance with, the approved landscaping plan. The landscaped areas shall: a) Be maintained to ensure their ongoing amenity value, this includes the replacement of any dead or dying plants as soon as practicable with similar sized and species of plants.

Heritage 20)

Prior to any demolition of Category C scheduled building on this site, the applicant shall undertake the following and supply to Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory, architectural and photographic recording of the building fabric which addresses the following: a) The recording work should focus on identifying and recording information about the house’s original use by the Veldwijk Family as well as recording the changes in the structure overtime. This work should include a thorough investigation of the building fabric to answer questions about the fabric of the building. Products should include: i. overall site plan; ii. floor plans that show the various periods of building construction and modification; iii. elevations (exterior) and through sections; iv. roof and ceiling plans that record the various periods of building construction (as possible); v. details of joinery, architraves, fireplaces, etc.; vi. a photographic record of the building (with plan notations); vii. exterior paint sampling to identify Veldwijk paint colours and later colours. (It is suggested the ‘cratering’ method be used to investigate the colours.); viii. wall paper samples or paint colours that relate to the Veldwijk phase of occupancy, if any can be identified; and ix. samples of any building fabric that are unusual or could be interpreted in a museum display (e.g. brick work). b) Architectural plans prepared in a CAD system (electronically and hardcopy). The building information shall be compiled as a report. In addition Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 39

larger format plans shall be provided with the report and a copy of the digital photographs copied to CD. c) A complete 3D digital laser scan of the entire site including existing buildings and perimeter fencing. d) Copies of the report information shall be deposited with WDC and the Cambridge Library. The large format architectural drawings, photo CD, a copy of the report and any samples of relevant building material shall also be deposited with the Cambridge Museum. 21)

Retention of the Brick and Metal Boundary Fence/ Wall a) The brick wall/ fence adjacent to Hamilton Road and 15 to 20 metres of the wall/fence from Hamilton Road south along Hall Street shall be preserved. The wall shall be maintained by the property owner and protected during demolition and any associated earthworks. Note: A fine may be issued by Waipa District Council for any damage during any site work and rebuilding of the wall will be required to match the existing wall.

22)

External Signage Interpretive heritage signage shall be provided on the perimeter of the property. Detailed design plans for the proposed signage shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory, for approval prior to lodging a building consent application for the Hotel. The interpretive heritage signage shall be erected no later than 30 days of the Hotel being open and be maintained by the current and future owners of the property. a) The signage should include the erection of a sign that contains: i. detailed interpretation of the history of the structure, and ii. photographs and plans that illustrate how the structure changed over time. b) The signage will commemorate the history of the site, the building and George Veldwijk (the builder) and provide a focus for public education. Note: Council will discuss the interpretive signage plans with the Cambridge Museum.

23)

Internal Signage Interpretive heritage signage shall be displayed in a prominent room within the building (the Lounge/dining room for example). Detailed design plans for the proposed signage shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Planning & Regulatory, for approval prior to lodging a building consent application for the Hotel. The interpretive heritage signage shall be erected no later than 30 Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 40

days of the Hotel being open and be maintained by the current and future owners of the property. Note: Council will discuss the interpretive signage plans with the Cambridge Museum. 24)

Within six months of the date of this consent, a covenant shall be entered onto the Certificate of Title for Pt Allotment 547 Town of Cambridge East (SA1208/297) at the consent holder’s expense, recording the obligations to retain and maintain the heritage brick fence and interpretive heritage signage required by Conditions 21, 22, 23 and 24 of this consent by existing and future landowners of the site.

25)

Monitoring the outcome a) The mitigation tasks required as a resource consent conditions should commence prior to demolition or removal of the dwelling and part of the brick fence. The tasks shall be completed to the satisfaction of Council’s Consents Team Leader.

Water 26)

The consent holder shall arrange for Council to upgrade the existing water connection to include a backflow preventer and water meter to the development, at the consent holder’s expense. The consent holder shall make an application to Councils Water Services Department with details of the developments’ water requirements to determine the appropriate size and location of the water connection. Note: Council may require the consent holder to install internal storage to service firefighting requirements. This will be determined at the time of Building Consent application.

Wastewater 27)

The consent holder shall conduct a CCTV survey of the existing public sewer reticulation within the site boundaries, prior and post site construction, to assess the condition prior to construction, and any subsequent damage to the pipe, pipe jointing, connections and gradient. The CCTV survey shall be recorded and submitted for approval to Council’s Manager Development Engineering. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the Guidelines as set out in the New Zealand Pipe Inspection Manual 2006 (3rd Edition) and be at the consent holders expense. The following matters shall also be addressed: a) The CCTV submitted shall be accompanied by a report from a suitably qualified professional detailing each separate pipe line surveyed highlighting any defects and damages found with a suggested remedy for the repair/elimination of defects found. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 41

Note: The consent holder shall remedy any faults to the existing public sewer drainage shown in the reports above. Construction drawings shall be submitted to Council for acceptance prior to any work being carried out. Stormwater 28)

The consent holder shall install a stormwater disposal system for the total development, including buildings and car parking. The consent holder shall submit design/construction plans to Council for acceptance prior to carrying out any construction work required by this consent

29)

This system shall be constructed and recorded in accordance with the Council’s standards as set out in the Waipa District Development and Subdivision Manual 2012. All work shall be to the satisfaction of the Council’s Manager Development Engineering, and shall be at the consent holder’s expense.

30)

An inspection is required prior to any backfill being placed. As-built plans and information of all infrastructure assets shall be provided prior to the final inspection.

Review Condition 31)

Subject to s.128 RMA, Council may elect to review conditions 4, 7-12, 19, 22 to 25 within 12 months of the date of this consent, and then annually to ensure compliance and the effectiveness of the car parking requirements, noise management plan, amenity conditions, and the landscaping and heritage obligations of the consent holder. The conditions may be reviewed if necessary amended to deal with any adverse effect that may arise from the exercise of the consent as appropriate.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 42

Reasons for Decision: a)

The application is generally consistent with the visitor accommodation objectives and policies of the proposed Waipa District Plan. The imposition of conditions to further address urban design matters regarding the bulk and massing of the building’s Hamilton Road façade will assist the building’s assimilation within the Cambridge Residential Character Area.

b)

Despite the loss of a Category C scheduled heritage building from the Proposed Waipa District Plan, and the Cambridge community, any actual and potential effects on the environment are either minor or less than minor, or can be appropriately mitigated through conditions of consent.

c)

Subject to the appropriate conditions of consent and a revised Hamilton Road façade, the application is not inconsistent with the provisions of the relevant regional planning documents, particularly related to the protection of Heritage resources, and other non-statutory policy documents that are considered to be relevant to this application (including the Cambridge Town Concept Plan).

d)

With appropriate mitigation through consent conditions the application is not inconsistent with the matters set out in Part 2 of the RMA, in particular s. 5, s.6 and s.7 of the Act.

e)

Conditions related to the recording of the site’s history and provision of internal and external historic interpretive boards will enable the site’s history to be preserved beyond the life of the dwelling. It is important the portion of the existing wall is protected and maintained to provide a remnant of the original brick work and a physical link to the site’s heritage. The records shall be provided to the appropriate authorities.

f)

Engineering requirements and approvals will ensure that the development is adequately provided with services when the site is developed.

g)

Vehicle accessway construction and closures and carparking construction conditions are to ensure that all works are carried out as per Council’s guidelines to ensure safety of road users and adequate treatment of stormwater.

h)

The closure of the accessway on Hamilton Road is a mitigation measure requested by the NZ Transport Agency and Waipa District Council Development Engineer and agreed by the applicant. It is appropriate that the local road is used for access to this development.

i)

A monitoring condition for traffic related effects is to reduce any adverse effects from guests of the visitor accommodation potentially affecting the residential amenity of Hall Street. Specifically it is considered inappropriate for Hall Street to be used for parking associated with the development. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 43

j)

Conditions relating to noise are to ensure that a non-residential activity operating in the Residential Zone does not create adverse effects on the surrounding area. A measurement and monitoring plan is required to demonstrate on-site activities comply with the necessary conditions and maintain residential amenity.

k)

The landscaping conditions are to ensure that all planting (including street tree planting) is carried out as per an updated and approved Landscape Plan, and the mitigation relied upon to screen the building is achieved as anticipated in a reasonable timeframe.

l)

Development Contributions are levied for uses of land that generates additional demand in accordance with Council’s Development Contributions Policy, pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This is a separate decision under the LGA and is referenced in this report for completeness only.

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 44

Advisory Notes 1

Failure to comply with the conditions of consent may result in Council taking legal action under the provisions of Part XII of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2

All earthworks associated with any development of land must be undertaken in accordance with the following matters: i) All earthworks must be carried out so as to provide sound foundations as required under NZS 4431:1989 and avoid any hazard to persons or property; ii) All earthworks must be carried out so as to avoid or mitigate any detrimental effect on the environment particularly with regard to the unnecessary destruction of vegetation, the contamination of natural water or the diversion of surface or ground water flows: iii) The existing landform must not be altered in such a manner that adjoining properties will be detrimentally affected particularly through changes in drainage systems or abrupt changes in ground level and iv) All earthworks must be carried out in accordance with the Waipa District Development and Subdivision Manual 2012 for formation and construction standards.

3

If Taonga (treasured or prized possessions, including Maori artefacts) or archaeological sites are discovered in any area being earth-worked, the consent holder shall cease work within a 100m radius of the discovery immediately and contact local iwi, Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) and Council’s Manager Planning and Regulatory. Earthworks shall not recommence in that area until a site inspection is carried out by iwi representatives, relevant Council staff and staff of Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) (if they consider it necessary); the appropriate action has been carried out to remove the Taonga and record the site, or alternative action has been taken; and approval to continue work is given by Council’s Manager Planning and Regulatory. The site inspection shall occur within 3 working days of the discovery being made.

4

If during construction activities, any Koiwi (skeletal remains) or similar material are uncovered, works are to cease within a 100m radius of the discovery immediately, and the consent holder shall notify the New Zealand Police, local iwi, Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) and Council’s Manager Planning and Regulatory. Earthworks shall not recommence in that area until a site inspection is carried out by iwi representatives, relevant Council staff and staff from the HNZ and the New Zealand Police (if they consider it necessary); the appropriate ceremony has been conducted by iwi (if necessary); the materials discovered have been removed by the iwi responsible for the tikanga appropriate to their removal and preservation or re-interment, or alternative action (e.g. works are relocated) has been taken; and approval to continue work is given by Council’s Manager Planning and Regulatory.

5

A development contribution will be payable for the proposal and will be advised separately. Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 45

Melissa Slatter PLANNING CONSULTANT Approved for the Regulatory Committee Agenda by

Gareth Moran AUTHORISED OFFICER

Wayne Allan MANAGER PLANNING & REGULATORY

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 46

Appendix 1

Site development plans and drawings (August 2016)

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 47

Appendix 2

Resource Consent Application Including: Certificate of Title

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 48

Appendix 3

Further information submitted under s.92(1)

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 49

Appendix 4

Location of Submitter’s Map and Submissions Received

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 50

Appendix 5

Development Engineer Comments

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 51

Appendix 6

Traffic Specialist Assessment

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 52

Appendix 7

Landscape/Visual and Urban Design Specialist Assessment

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 53

Appendix 8

Heritage Specialist Assessment

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 54

Appendix 9

Cambridge Heritage Committee comments

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 55

Appendix 10

Environmental Health Officer Comments

Report to Regulatory Committee Meeting - (28 September 2016) Windsor Trust

Page 56