Report on an application for resource consent under section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991

TO:

Resource Consent Hearings Commissioners

FROM:

Charlotte Belsham, Planning Consultant

DATE:

31 March 2015

NOTE: This report sets out the advice of the reporting planner. This report has yet to be considered by the Panel of Commissioners delegated by the Council to determine this application. The recommendation is not the decision on this application. A decision will only be made after the Commissioners have considered the application and heard the applicant and any submitters. 1.0

APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

1.1

Application and Property Details

Application number(s):

R/LUC/2014/2474

Reporting officer:

Charlotte Belsham, Planning Consultant

Site address:

30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Applicant’s name:

David McDonald Trust

Lodgement date:

24 June 2014

Notification date:

5 December 2014

Submissions closed date:

23 January 2015

Number of submissions received:

One (1), in support. Zero (0), neutral. Three (3), opposing.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 1

1.2

Locality Plan

1.3

Application Documents (Plans and Reference Documents) The following information has been provided as part of the application:  

Application Form prepared by Gary Deeney of Positive Planning Limited. Assessment of Environmental Effects, prepared by Gary Deeney of Positive Planning Limited and dated 24 June 2014.  Heritage Impact Assessment, Condition Assessment & Photographic Survey, prepared by Archifact Limited, referenced as Final Rev A and dated 10 September 2014. The application documents and plans are set out in Attachment A of this report. 1.4

Adequacy of Information It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis: a) b) c) d) e)

The nature and scope of the proposed activity as it relates to the Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The extent and scale of any adverse effects on the environment. Persons who may be adversely affected. The requirements of the relevant legislation. A request for further information under s92 of the RMA was made on 11 July 2014. The applicant provided all of the information requested on 12 September 2014.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 2

1.5

Report and Assessment Methodology The application has been prepared to an adequate standard incorporating a number of expert assessments. In recognition of the standard of this application, this report will not unnecessarily repeat descriptions or assessments made in the application. A separate and independent assessment of the proposal has been undertaken and independent experts have been engaged on behalf of the Auckland Council to review technical aspects as required. If the descriptions or assessments provided on various aspects of the proposal are agreed the report will simply confirm agreement with these aspects. If there are differences in opinion or matters that need more assessment, consideration or discussion in the report or indeed there are matters that are considered inaccurate, incorrect or that have been missed or there is disagreement with opinion or approaches, the report will detail conflicting assessments and opinions (of those of Council experts) where relevant. Where appropriate extracts from the application material or from the Council expert reports will be included to enable this report and assessment to flow and be clearly understood. The assessment also relies upon reviews and advice from the following experts on behalf of the Council and specialist Auckland Council officers. These assessments are attached in Attachment B of this report:  

2.0

Auckland Council’s Dr Bryan Pooley: Heritage Salmond Reed Architects Ltd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY David McDonald Trust has applied to the Auckland Council for land use resource consent to demolish the existing fire-damaged single bay villa located within the south west corner of the subject site. Consent is required under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan for demolition of a Category B historic heritage building as a non-complying activity. In essence, the primary issues relate to the impact on the historic heritage values of the building and the surrounding and wider environment, the weighting of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions against the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) and the suitability of the villa within an industrial area. Having reviewed the documentation submitted as well as taking into account the expert assessments provided by the Council’s Built Heritage specialist and the content of the submissions received, it is in my opinion that the application, on balance, fufils the relevant statutory tests of Section 104, 104B and 104D of the Resource Management Act as it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the District Plan, while any resultant adverse effects are minor. Whilst the detailed reasons for this conclusion are substantiated within the body of this report, in summary it is my opinion that the proposed demolition is acceptable given the inherent heritage values of the villa, and the incompatible activities and built form within the surrounding environment. Accordingly, subject to further or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended that consent be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 3

3.0

THE PROPOSAL, SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION

3.1

Proposal The proposal involves the total demolition of the existing fire-damaged single bay villa, known as Wilson’s Villa located in the south west corner of 30 Princes Street, Onehunga. There is no proposed replacement building.

3.2

Site, Locality, Catchment and Environs Description The subject site is located on the northern side of Princes Street, just west of the intersection with Newsome Street. It is a 1543m2 Mixed Use zoned site that is rectangular in shape and is occupied by one single level bay villa known as ‘Wilson Villa’, located in the south west corner of the site, as well as two large factory buildings located in the north east part of the site, and a small timber office/shed located to the rear of the villa. The site topography is relatively flat. An existing 2.4 metre (approximately) high corrugated iron fence is located along the street boundary while vehicle access is gained from a central point along the site’s frontage, which provides access to a gravel parking area located in the south east portion of the site. A street tree is located on the berm in front of the subject site to the west of this vehicle crossing. Aside from these buildings the site features a mixture of concrete, gravel and grass areas across its extent. The site is untidy in appearance with a significant amount of building and factory waste littered around the site.

Wilson Villa

Figure 1: Aerial photograph of subject site

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 4

The character, building scale and activities along Princes Street are varied. This part of the road is characterised by predominately commercial and industrial activities. There are a small number of multi-unit residential buildings nearby at 38 Princes Street, 27 Hill Street and 51 Princes Street, but single residential houses are not common in the surrounding streets. The Wilson Villa appears out of place within the context of the site and surrounding area and is dominated by the larger commercial and industrial buildings which surround it. The front fence provides a visual barrier from the street, with only the roof of the villa visible above the fence. Directly to the west of the subject site is 26-28 Princes Street which contains two buildings constructed in a similar period to the Wilson Villa. The Farrell Villa is located at 26 Princes Street and the Farrell Bakery is located at 28 Princes Street. These three buildings form a nucleus of buildings which have associations with the Furley family, being the prominent founders of Onehunga’s early commercial centre in the late 1840’s, as set out in the Auckland Council Heritage Unit 2013 Heritage Assessment. 3.3

Background The site previously contained another scheduled building located in the southeast corner, which was identified as the ‘bakehouse and shop’. Resource consent was required for the demolition of the bakehouse and shop as it was on the register of notable buildings, objects and areas in the Onehunga District Scheme. Consent R/LUC/1991/1887 provided consent for the demolition of this building, which was subsequently given effect to. Wilson Villa is a Historic Heritage Place (Category B) and part of the site is a Historic Heritage Extent of Place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The applicant has made a submission to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan opposing the inclusion of the building at 30 Princes Street (Wilson Villa) as a Category B place (reference 2606) within the Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage Places in Appendix 9 of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is still going through the hearing phase and the hearing for this particular submission has not yet been scheduled. As the submission is challenging the inclusion of Wilson Villa as a Category B scheduled Historic Heritage Place in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, the scheduling of the building has the potential to change through the hearing process. On the 3 October 2013 the subject building was subject to a fire which seriously damaged approximately 10% of the rear of the existing building. This fire was assessed as being accidental and caused by cigarette butts. An assessment was undertaken by David Bade of Auckland Council Heritage Unit in 2013 (see Attachment B) to evaluate the heritage value of the subject property and recommended inclusion in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as a Category B place. This assessment occurred prior to the fire occurring on the site. Since lodgement the applicant has provided a heritage assessment undertaken by Archifact Limited. The Archifact assessment differs notably from the Council’s assessment and therefore Council’s Built Heritage Unit determined that the Council’s assessment should be independently reviewed. Salmond Reed Architects Limited undertook a peer review of the Council Heritage Units 2013 assessment. Salmond Reed Architects concur with Auckland Council’s assessment that the Wilson Villa warrants scheduling as a Category B listing with the extent of place as delineated by the Council.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 5

3.4

Other Consents No other consents are required under the Resource Management Act 1991 to give effect to the proposed development.

4.0

REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION Resource consent is required under the provisions of the following District Plan:

4.1

District Plan

4.1.1 Proposed District Plan – Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013 Rule 3.J.2.1 Activity Table 1 states that total or substantial demolition or destruction of a Category B place is a non-complying activity. The proposal involves demolition of a Category B place known as ‘Wilsons Villa’ and therefore requires consent as a non-complying activity. Note: The demolition of ’Wilsons Villa’ is a permitted activity under the Auckland Council District Plan – Auckland City Isthmus Section.

4.2

Status of the Application Overall the application is considered to be a non-complying activity.

5.0

NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

5.1

Notification The application was publicly notified on 5 December 2014 at the request of the applicant in accordance with s95A(2)(b) of the RMA 1991.

5.2

Submissions At the close of the submission period, a total of four (4) submissions were received. No late submissions were received. A total of one (1) submission supported the application, three (3) opposed the application and no (0) submissions were neutral. A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought by the submitters is set out as follows: Support/Oppose No.

Name

Physical Address

1

Colin W Freland

3/40 Woodward Avenue, Oppose Mangere Bridge

2

Rosemary Browne

33 Alamar Crescent, Support Mangawhai Heads

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Wish to be heard? Y

N

Page 6

3

Alan James Bray

84 Muir Avenue, Mangere Oppose Bridge

4

Onehunga Fencible PO Box 13852, Onehunga & Historical Society Inc.

Oppose

Y

Y

Please note that the following are summaries of the key issues raised in submissions. Please refer to the full set of submissions as required. These are attached in Attachment C to this report. Submission 1 Opposes the application. The relief sought is to “see the heritage buildings that remain in the street be used in a way that reminds people of the past history of the main commercial area of Onehunga.” Submission 2 Supports the removal of the ‘Wilson Villa’ as it “is fire damaged and needs to be removed.” Submission 3 Opposes the application. The relief sought was “to see this heritage historic house remain where it is and be restored that reminds people of Onehunga the past history of the main commercial area that once was.” Submission 4 Opposes the application. The submitter sets out three relief options: 

Option 1: is to “retain the structure in its original historic site, or close to it & restored for practical use.”



Option 2: it is “offered for removal to anyone who would move it to another site and restore it to its original outside look.”



Option 3: “if demolition is a forced reality that the salvageable materials be offered to people restoring buildings of the same era.”

Option 1 is the most preferred option by the submitter. The submitter would also like to see any future buildings on the site avoid overshadowing and being detrimental to the historic buildings to the west of the site or in other areas of Princes Street. They suggest that an archaeological survey be conducted covering any changes and foundation digging on site. 5.3

Written Approvals The applicant has not obtained written approval from any persons.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 7

6.0

CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION

6.1

Statutory Considerations When considering an application for a non-complying activity the consent authority must have regard to Part 2 of the RMA (“Purposes and Principles” – sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104B, 104D, and where relevant sections and 108 of the RMA. Subject to Part 2 of the RMA, when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received a council must, in accordance with s104(1) of the RMA have regard to:  



any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; any relevant provisions of a NES, other regulations, national policy statement, a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement; a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan; and any other matter a council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

Section 104(2) allows any effects that may arise from permitted activities set out in a NES or a plan to be excluded from the assessment of effects related to the resource consent. This is known as the permitted baseline test. The ‘baseline’ constitutes the existing environment (excluding existing use rights) against which a proposed activity’s degree of adverse effect is assessed. Generally it is only the adverse effects over and above those forming the baseline that are relevant when considering whether the effects are minor. It is at the Council’s discretion whether to apply the assessment of the permitted baseline to any proposal. Essentially, the consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of any activity on the environment if a NES or an operative plan (or an operative rule in a proposed plan) permits an activity with that effect. When considering an application for resource consent, the consent authority must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition [s104(3)(a)(i)] or any effect on a person who has given their written approval to the application [s104(3)(a)(ii)]. Under s104B a consent authority may grant or refuse consent for a discretionary activity or non complying activity and, if it grants the application, may impose conditions under s108 of the RMA. Section 104D sets out the ‘threshold test’ for non-complying activities. A consent authority may only grant consent to a non complying activity if it is satisfied that the adverse effects on the environment are minor, or the activity will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan or proposed plan. If either of the limbs of the test has been passed then the application is able to be considered for approval subject to consideration under s104 of the RMA. Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and sets out the kind of conditions that may be imposed.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 8

All considerations are subject to Part 2 of the RMA, which sets out the purpose and principles that guide this legislation. This means the matters in Part 2 prevail over other provisions of the RMA or provisions in planning instruments (e.g. regional plans) in the event of a conflict. S5 states the purpose of the RMA and sections 6, 7 and 8 are principles intended to provide additional guidance as to the way in which the purpose is to be achieved. The application of s5 involves an overall broad judgement of whether a proposal will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The RMA’s use of the terms “use, development and protection” are a general indication that all resources are to be managed in a sustainable way, or at a rate which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, while sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying and mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. The enabling and management functions found in s5(2) should be considered of equal importance and taken as a whole. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA provide further context and guidance to the constraints found in s5(2)(a),(b) and (c). The commencing words to these sections differ, thereby laying down the relative weight to be given to each section. Section 6 of the RMA sets out the matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage. In the case of this particular proposal the protection of historic heritage is of relevance. Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report. Section 7 of the RMA requires the consent authority to give particular regard to those matters listed in the section. Section 7 matters are not expressly ranked in order of priority. Therefore, all aspects of this section are to be considered equally. In the case of this particular proposal the following matters are considered relevant: 

the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values



the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

Relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report. Section 8 of the RMA requires the consent authority to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This section of the RMA recognises the relationship of Tangata Whenua with natural and physical resources and encourages active participation and consultation with Tangata Whenua. Any relevant matters are considered in the evaluation section of this report. 6.2

Section 104(1)(a) Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

6.2.1 Effects that must be disregarded A.

Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 9

No persons have provided their written approval. B.

Trade competition Trade competition is of no relevance in this instance.

6.2.2 Effects that may be disregarded – Permitted Baseline assessment The permitted baseline refers to permitted activities on the subject site. In this case, the subject site is zoned Mixed Use under the Operative District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and total/substantial demolition of a building is permitted in the zones. However, the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan overlay associated with the protection of historic heritage is applicable (and has legal effect) and therefore demolition of a Category B scheduled building under the Historic Heritage Overlay is a non-complying activity. It is noted that under the Operative District Plan the Wilson Villa is not scheduled and its demolition is permitted however, with section 86B(3) of the RMA applicable to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rule regarding demolition of a Category B scheduled building, this can no longer be considered an applicable baseline. Therefore there is no relevant permitted baseline that can be applied in this case, as consent is required for any work or demolition within the Historic Heritage overlay of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. 6.2.3 Assessment of Effects Having regard to the above and after analysis of the application (including any proposed mitigation measures), undertaking a site visit, reviewing Council records, reviewing the submissions received and taking advice from appropriate experts, the following effects that require specific consideration in respect to this application have been identified. Historic Heritage Effects To assess any actual or potential historic heritage effects resulting from the loss of the building, the heritage values of the building first need to be established. The heritage values of the subject building have been assessed by Auckland Council Heritage Unit, Archifact Limited and Salmond Reed Architects Limited. In some respects there is a significant difference of opinion within the three assessments. Mr Bade of Auckland Council’s Heritage Unit considers that the “Wilson’s villa at 30 Princes Street, Onehunga has considerable heritage significance.” Archifact considers that “the subject building and site are considered to hold no more than little historic heritage significance.” Salmond Reed Architects provides a peer review of Auckland Council’s assessment and concludes that “the place merits a Category B listing with the extent of place as delineated.” The following will address the specific heritage values associated with the existing building on the site, referencing all three specialist assessment as appropriate. The following heritage values are from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan scheduling criteria, of which I have provided a summary of each. The evaluation of the scheduling criteria is a five-level scale, comprising the following ratings: 1 – exceptional, 2 – considerable, 3 – moderate, 4 – little, and 5 - none, as described in more depth on page 43 of the Archifact report. (Note: The below text in italics provides a brief description of each criterion/value) Historical Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 10

The place reflects important or representative aspects of national, regional or local history, or is associated with an important event, person, group of people or idea or early period of settlement with the nation, region or locality. Mr Bade’s assessment (for Auckland Council) considers the Wilson Villa to have considerable local historical significance due to its location as “part of a nucleus of related buildings located on three adjoining properties (26 to 30 Princes Street) that have associations with the family of Matilda and Samuel Furley” as well as its association with the Furley family. Archifact considers that “although Furley was a prolific local businessman, with numerous business interests, his influence and status was minor and local. He does not appear to feature more widely in areas of politics or community service (as notable businessmen in this developing colony often were) and so his historical impact can be described as little at best.” They also consider that Capt. Wilson and Sarah Wilson were not people of historical importance and additionally that the loss of the brick bakehouse from the site in 1991 resulted in a loss of the group values associated between the villa and the bakehouse and also a loss of an important link to Onehunga’s early developmental history. Archifact considers that the factors associated with the Villa’s connection to the Furley family and Onehunga’s early development history indicate only moderate historical importance for the site. “However, the place and its context have been severely altered and significant elements of fabric have been changed to such an extent that the value of the overall site has become severely degraded. The loss of the original bakery building also has a significant negative effect on the historical values of the place overall.” Overall, Archifact considers that the site holds little historical significance and that the villa itself has little historical significance. Salmond Reed concurs with Mr Bade’s assessment and considers that the “association with Matilda and Samuel Furley as early settlers and prominent founders of Onehunga’s early commercial centre in west Princes Street” and the connection to the adjoining land at 26 and 28 Princes Street, (that was given to Furley’s daughters) results in the Wilson’s Villa having considerable local historical value. In my view it is reasonable to consider that the site has at least moderate local historical significance through its association with Samuel and Matilda Furley. On balance, the loss of the stone and brick bakehouse has degraded some association with Samuel and Matilda Furley and an important period of development in Onehunga’s history as the first bakery. The villa was owned and occupied by Furley’s daughter Sarah and her husband who (themselves) are not considered important to the heritage of Onehunga, except for being a part of the Furley family. The villa is also considered to not be a unique or important aspect of nineteenth century early settlement as the villa is a relatively common single bay villa that has been modified (by a rear lean-to addition, internal alterations and loss of the original brick chimney) and is fire damaged. There is no research to show that the villa was used for any significant or important events or activities in the history of Onehunga. It is however, associated with a person who was notable in the early period of development in Onehunga and therefore it is my opinion that the villa holds some local historical value that has been degraded and disconnected over time, specifically through the industrialisation of the surrounding and wider Princes Street environment. Social The place has a strong or special association with, or is held in high esteem by, a particular community or cultural group for its symbolic, spiritual, commemorative, traditional or other cultural value.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 11

There is little contention between the three assessments on this criterion, as both Auckland Council and Salmond Reed agree that there is little social value for the place. Archifact considers that the villa has no social significance as the villa was a “private residence for a relatively unremarkable family, and as such has limited potential for significant social contribution. Neither the building, its uses, nor its occupants have played a substantial role in the social development or history of Onehunga.” Archifact also considers that the site has little social significance as its historic association with the previous bakehouse and the Furley family was lost when the bakehouse was demolished. It is reasonable to conclude that the villa has no to little social significance as per the three assessments. Knowledge The place has potential to provide knowledge through scientific or scholarly study or to contribute to an understanding of the cultural or natural history of the nation, region or locality. Auckland Council and Salmond Reed consider that the site has moderate knowledge values due to it being a pre 1900 site and its possible value in terms of archaeological evidence. Salmond Reed considers that the villa is a standard housing type and “unlikely to contribute to our knowledge above and beyond other similar houses in Onehunga or Auckland.” Archifact also considers that “small scale, timber residential buildings with many original features are locally quite common.” Based on this, it is considered that the site has the potential to provide moderate knowledge values in terms of archaeological significance, however the villa itself is relatively common or simple construction and will not provide any further knowledge above what can be found on similar houses within the Onehunga or wider Auckland region form that period. It is further noted that demolition of the villa (to its foundations) would not necessarily comprise any archaeological values at the site. Technology The place demonstrates technical accomplishment, innovation or achievement in its structure, construction, components or use of materials. All three assessments agree that the techniques and materials used in the construction of the villa were common for the period and are of little local technological value. Based on this, it is considered that the villa has little or no technological values. Physical Attributes The place is notable or representative example of type, design or style, method of construction, craftsmanship or use of materials or the work of a notable architect, designer, engineer or builder. Auckland Council’s assessment considers that the villa has considerable physical attributes due to it being a “largely intact flush single bay T-plan villa from the nineteenth century.” Salmon Reed’s assessment considers that since the “housing type is not unusual in Onehunga and is a recurring housing type in Auckland, no evidence has been found to suggest that it is architect designed or to indicate who the builder might have been” it only holds moderate local significance in terms of its physical attributes. Archifact considers that the villa only has little physical attribute significance. Whilst Archifact agrees that the villa is a Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 12

common example of a flush faced single bay villa, it also considers that the significant modifications made to the house including lean-to addition at the rear, removal of the original brick chimney, alterations to the porch layout, internal modification and the fire-damage has considerably diminished the physical values of the villa. There is significant difference between the classifications of the physical attribute values of the villa in each assessment, however their assessment and reasons do not differ significantly. I conclude that the villa has little physical attributes of significance as Archifacts assessment has concluded due to its common features and modifications made over time. Aesthetic The place is notable or distinctive for its aesthetic, visual or landmark qualities. All three assessments are consistent in determining that the aesthetic values of the villa are of little significance. Specifically, Archifact considers that the villa is a common building type and “enjoys little by way of special detailing, and its layout, overall form and close detail are quite typical for its typology” combined with the number of building modifications that have “negatively affected the buildings visual amenity.” It is also considered that the views to the villa from the street environment are “almost non-existent” due to the solid, high boundary fence. Salmond Reed considers that the “villa and the adjoining properties to the east (former Farrell bakery and Former Percy Farrell Villa) are entirely surrounded and subsumed by larger, light industrial buildings and warehouses.” The front boundary treatment and street tree provide screening of the villa so that it makes little contribution to the streetscape. Based on the specialist assessments, it is considered that the aesthetic values of the Villa are of little significance. Context The place contributes to or is associated with a wider historical and cultural context, streetscape, townscape, landscape or setting. Auckland Council considers that the villa has considerable local contextual significance as it sits “on its original site and contributes strongly to a historical landscape relating to businesses and industries which developed in the Princes Street vicinity from the nineteenth century.” It is also part of a number of “nearby extant historical buildings relating to this historical landscape including the neighbouring c. 1902-03 Farrell Villa (26 Princes Street) and c.1870s/90s the Farrell Bakery (28 Princes Street), as well as the 1852 Ninnis Stone Store (19 Princes Street) and the c.1905-06 workingman’s cottages (2-4 George Terrace). Salmond Reed concurs with Auckland Council’s assessment, however does note that the surrounding area was once “a neighbourhood that once consisted of houses interspersed with commercial activity is now a light industrial area and this does detract from the contextual value.” Archifact considers that the place has no contextual significance as “the context of the place has been changed to such an extent that its value is severely degraded” specifically, the demolition of the historically associated stone and brick bakehouse. Archifact does consider that some consideration should be given to the villa’s close proximity to the historical buildings at 28 and 26 Princes Street, however “these three neighbouring buildings do not display an important architectural or historic unity of sufficient importance to elevate their collective value.” Archifact also discusses the fact that the villa is currently a “standalone residential building sited deep within a heavily industrialised area” and the villa is surrounded

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 13

by industrial buildings that result in the pre-1944 buildings becoming “less relevant in the wider streetscape.” Based on this, I consider that the villa does hold moderate contextual value due to its being on its original site and located as part of a cluster of three heritage buildings as well as within the wider Princes Street environment, however on balance the industrial character of the surrounding and wider streetscape has severely reduced the contextual values of the site as the villa appears to be significantly out of context as a residential unit within an industrial environment. The demolition of the stone and brick bakehouse has resulted in a loss of context for the Villa’s association with commercial activities. Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the inherent values of the subject villa are moderate at best and limited to historical values through its association with the early settlement and development of Onehunga and with Samuel and Matilda Furley. Auckland Council’s Built Heritage Specialist Bryan Pooley has assessed the application for the demolition of the Wilson villa. Mr Pooley considers that the demolition of the villa will result in more than minor adverse effects however, Mr Pooley’s assessment is based on the fact that it is scheduled. It is important to note that the demolition of the villa has the potential to adversely affect the adjoining heritage buildings at 28 and 26 Princes Street as it may lower the group values associated with the three buildings. However, it is considered that the existing character of Princes Street already detracts from the heritage values of the subject site and surrounding heritage buildings due to the industrial nature of the sites and large buildings which dominate the environment. It is also considered that the existing more modern development on each of the sites creates a disconnect between the sites. It is also considered that although the three sites were originally associated with the Furley family the development, use and ownership of each site has differed over time. Therefore the demolition will not adversely affect the heritage values of the group of buildings as they are not viewed together from the street environment, do not hold significant heritage values as a group and the industrial environment provides separation of the buildings from each other. Based on the above assessment, I am of the opinion that the demolition of Wilson’s villa will have minor adverse effects on the heritage values of the wider environment as it will remove all association the site has with Samuel and Matilda Furley and the early settlement of Onehunga. Demolition/Removal Effects The removal of the existing Wilson Villa will likely generate some noise and other associated demolition type effects which are anticipated to be temporary and are likely to be limited to the surrounding sites which are commercial in nature and will not adversely affect the wider environment. In addition, it is acknowledged that the demolition of the existing industrial buildings on the same site (which have no heritage protection) is a permitted activity (subject to compliance with the construction noise limits) and that these effects would be comparable to demolition of the subject villa. Construction related effects can be appropriately managed by construction noise limits and any related effect on the surrounding environment will be minor and temporary.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 14

Positive Effects There are positive effects of note, being the demolition of a residential unit not suitable for use as a residential dwelling due to its location within a predominately commercial and industrial area. The demolition of the building will also allow for redevelopment of the site in a manner that is consistent with its zoning and existing commercial development and activities in the surrounding area. Conclusion of Actual and Potential Effects In summary, it is considered that the proposed demolition of the Wilson villa would result in actual and potential adverse effects that, when viewed in the context of the subject environment and balanced against the positive effects that would result, are of a nature that are acceptable in the circumstances and minor in scale. This is because:

6.3



The adverse effects on the heritage values of the environment will be minor as relative to the values inherent in the place as found, which have been assessed to be moderate at best.



The demolition of the building (in terms of its physical removal from the site) will adversely affect the surrounding environment to a minor degree in terms of noise and general disturbance, however this will be temporary and not beyond what can be expected by this activity.

Section 104(1)(b)(i) and (ii) Relevant Provisions of National Environmental Standards and Other Regulations There are no NES or other regulations in effect that apply to this application.

6.4

Section 104(1)(b)(iii) Relevant Provisions of National Policy Statements There are no National Policy Statements relevant to this application.

6.5

Section 104(1)(b)(iv) Relevant Provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) The NZCPS is not applicable to this application.

6.6

Section 104(1)(b)(v) Relevant Provisions of the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement The Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement ("ACRPS") is a strategic document which sets out the direction of managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of the Auckland region. This document became operative in 1999. The strategic objectives and policies of the ACRPS provide a framework to achieve the integrated, consistent and co-ordinated management of the Region’s resources. Under the ACRPS, matters related to environmental protection, such as the coastal environment, water quality, water conservation and allocation and air quality have specific objectives, policies and methods to achieve sustainable and integrated management of major natural and physical resources in the Region.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 15

Chapter 6 of the ACRPS is of relevance to the application, specifically objective 1 and 9 of section 6.3 as these objectives provide for the management of heritage resources in a manner that ensures their contribution to the variety of heritage values are protected and enhanced. Policy 6.4.16 sets out the criteria to be used when evaluating cultural heritage. This is similar to that used earlier in this report to assess the heritage values associated with the villa. This report has identified that the inherent heritage values of the villa are moderate at best and only associated with the local environment and therefore it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the overarching objectives and policies of the ACRPS. 6.7

Section 104(1)(b)(vi) Relevant Provisions of the Relevant Regional and District Plan(s) Objectives, Policies and Rules The Plans applying to this proposal are the Auckland Operative District Plan – Isthmus Section and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

6.7.1 Relevant Objectives and Policies The following objectives and policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) are considered relevant. Full extracts of the relevant objectives and policies identified below are appended as Attachment D. Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Mixed Use Zone Objectives and Policies (Clause 2.D.3.7) The subject site is zoned Mixed Use under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The objectives and policies for sites zoned mixed use place emphasis on moderate to high intensity residential and commercial activities in areas close to the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones and public transport. The Mixed Use zone also provides a transition in terms of use and scale with adjacent residential areas. Having regard to the above provisions and the assessment of adverse effects undertaken in section 6.2.3 Above, I consider that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for development in the Mixed Use zone. In particular, the demolition of the existing building would allow for further redevelopment of the site to its full potential that is consistent with the Mixed Use zoning and surrounding activities. The retention of the villa would result in an inefficient use of land identified for high intensity development. Historic Heritage Objectives and Policies The relevant objectives and policies related to the Historic Heritage are set out in Part 1, Chapter B, Clause 4.1 (Regional Policy Statement Historic Heritage objectives and policies), Part 2, Chapter C, Section 3 (Auckland-Wide Historic Heritage objectives and policies and Part 2, Chapter E, Section 2 (Overlay Historic Heritage objectives and policies). It is considered that the proposal is not contrary to these objectives and policies for the following reasons: 

The inherent values associated with the building are considered moderate at best and therefore the demolition is not considered inappropriate as the demolition would not result in the loss of considerable historic heritage.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 16



The physical integrity of the building has been compromised due to lack of ongoing maintenance, fire-damage, and substantially through the modification and removal of historic features, including the brick chimney and the construction of the rear lean-to, and the value of the site has been significantly lost by the previous removal of the stone and brick bakehouse from the site.



The villa is located somewhat out of context due to the removal of the stone and brick bakehouse and the significant industrial and commercial uses on the subject site and within the surrounding environment.



It is acknowledged that the current use and location of the building within a predominately industrial and commercial area is inappropriate.



There will be no cumulative effect of the loss of the villa on the adjoining historic heritage buildings as currently the villa is surrounded by modern industrial buildings and has no direct visual connection to the adjoining buildings.

Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) Mixed Use zone (Clause 8.6.10) The subject site is zoned Mixed Use under the Operative District Plan. The objectives and policies for the Mixed Use zone emphasis the development of diverse and compatible mix of residential, business, educational and leisure activities in areas close to the Central Area of existing town centres which have easy access to public transport. Having regard to the above provisions and the assessment of adverse effects undertaken in section 6.2.3 above, I consider that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for the Mixed Use zone. In particular, the demolition of the existing building would allow for further redevelopment of the site that is consistent with the Mixed Use zoning and surrounding activities. Overall, it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with these provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section). 6.7.2 Relevant Rules As this application is for a non-complying activity there are no relevant assessment criteria for the proposal. However, the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan sets out assessment criteria for the total or substantial demolition or partial demolition or destruction of a historic heritage building under Part 3, Chapter J, Section 2 Sub-section 4.3 (Assessment – Restricted discretionary activities) that provide useful guidance and have been taken into consideration in the above assessment. A copy of these assessment criteria are appended as Attachment E.

6.7.3 Weighting of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan With regard to the assessment of an application for resource consent and the decision making process, where an application is being assessed under both the Operative District

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 17

Plan and the proposed Plan, it is standard practice to establish a weighting of the Plans where the outcomes under both plans will be different. In this case, a weighting exercise is not necessary as the same outcome results from an assessment under the operative and proposed plan provisions (i.e. the demolition is considered acceptable when considered against the relevant objectives, policies and rules of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and the demolition is permitted under the Operative Auckland District Plan – Isthmus Section). In the event that the Commissioners come to a different conclusion to the reporting planner in terms of the assessment against the relevant PAUP provisions, a weighting assessment has been carried out below. Based on case law, more weight should be placed on the provisions of the Operative District Plan until such time as the proposed Plan has made sufficient advances through the public notification and hearing process that a governing degree of weight can be placed on its controls. The Council notified the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan on 30 September 2013 and the closing date for submissions was 28 February 2014. The provisions are at an early stage in the statutory process, are subject to submissions and further submissions, and have not yet been tested by independent decision makers. In this case, the applicant has made a submission in opposition to the scheduling of the subject building. A hearing date has not yet been set. Plan provisions at this stage in the process have a potential for change. This typically suggests lesser weight. On the other hand, the PAUP provisions represent a significant policy shift from the operative plan provisions as the PAUP provisions have introduced heritage protection to the subject building, where as the building is afforded no heritage protection under the Operative Plan provisions. It is also relevant that the policy shift recognises a Part 2 matter of national importance relating to historic heritage (section 6(f)). It is also acknowledged that once the building is demolished or removed, that cannot be undone. Based on the above facts, it is considered that greater weight should be afforded to the relevant PAUP provisions in this case. 6.8

Section 104(1)(c): Any Other Matters Considered Relevant and Reasonably Necessary to Determine the Application Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this case the following matters are considered relevant:

6.8.1 Precedent Effects/Integrity of the District Plan When assessing non-complying activities, precedent effects are often raised given that their approval can be seen as opening the flood gates to forms of development not anticipated by the District Plan. In this case, there are a number of factors that make this application unique such as, being demolition of a fire-damaged villa which was a permitted activity under the Operative District Plan and which is now scheduled under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The merits of the proposed demolition are relative to the inherent heritage values associated with this Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 18

particular site and building. Therefore the approval of this proposal would not mean that another proposal for demolition of a scheduled heritage building would be a fait accompli. It too would need to be assessed on its merits in terms of the heritage value associated with the particular building. Accordingly, the granting of this proposal would not result in an adverse precedent related effect being generated. 6.8.2 Submissions All of the submissions received by Council in the processing of this application have been reviewed and considered in the overall assessment of effects in this report. Council’s specialists have also reviewed the relevant submissions as required and incorporated comments into their assessments accordingly. Many of these submissions raised similar issues and have been dealt with generically in the body of this report. Submitter four raised specific matters regarding alternatives to the demolition of the villa. Specifically, the alternatives mentioned are in regard to relocating the villa to another site and restoring it to its original form. Archifact also suggested that relocating the villa to a residential zone in Onehunga would be a viable option noting the villa would no longer appear out of context. The applicant’s agent provided comment regarding the alternative option of relocating the villa and has advised that “the access to the site is excellent and lends itself to a simple 1 or 2 piece relocation (if the rear addition is retained). The applicant will as a preference to demolition want to offer the house for relocation. Its size and age makes it highly suitable for such purpose.” The relocation of the villa is ultimately reliant on a third party wanting the building and a suitable site for relocation being available. The other alternative requested by submitter four is that of allowing the building materials to be made available to people restoring buildings of the same era. Whilst these alternative options are positive, I do not consider this necessary mitigation in order to support the proposal. 6.8.3 Local Board Comment Bridget Graham from the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board provided comment on the 20 July 2014. The Local Board “does not support the removal or demolition of number 30 Princes Street, neither do we support any removal of overlays that still protect the building. Because of the age of the building, the site is very likely an archaeological site as well. The area of Princes Street between the Mall and Beachcroft Road still has many buildings representing nineteenth century life in Onehunga, and the removal of any one of these weakens the whole area.” The issues addressed by the Local Board have been dealt with generically in the body of this report. 6.8.4 Monitoring In granting consent to an application the council may impose conditions to address any adverse effects. In addition, the council is required to monitor the exercise of resource consents under section 35 of the Act and may fix a charge under section 36 payable by the consent holder in order to carry out monitoring functions. The amount that can be charged is based on actual and reasonable costs associated with monitoring and covers such tasks as site inspections, carrying out tests and administration.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 19

A monitoring charge of $270 is considered appropriate for this proposal to allow for 1-2 monitoring visits, which is considered sufficient in relation to the recommended conditions. 6.8.5 Any other relevant matters Submission against the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan The applicant has lodged a submission against the scheduling of the villa as a Category B place under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. As discussed above the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is still going through the hearing process and a hearing has not been scheduled for this submission. There is the potential for the hearing process to either confirm or remove the scheduling of the villa. Once the villa has been demolished, it is gone forever and any heritage value will also be lost. As this application is presented before the decision on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and we cannot defer the decision until a decision is known on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, it must be considered that the scheduling of the villa is challenged and therefore limited weight can be given to the provision of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Usability As Onehunga, and Princes Street specifically, have developed over time, the villa has been increasingly surrounded by industrial uses and buildings. If the villa was restored and returned to its original use as a residential dwelling, it would be out of place and continue to sit uncomfortably in an industrial environment. Any residents living in the villa would have diminished amenity due to the existing activities on the site and surrounding environment. If the Princes Street environment was consistent with the character of residential units interspersed with commercial, as evident when the villa was constructed the villa may sit more comfortably and contribute to a sense of amenity in the area. However, as outlined the villa today sits uncomfortably in an industrial environment, with no street presence or amenity values associated with a residential unit. It is also in a degraded state and has been damaged by fire and is not fit for habitation in its current state. There is no mechanism to ensure that owners of a scheduled heritage building undertake maintenance or restoration work and therefore there is nothing to ensure that the villa will ever be restored to a usable standard. The applicant was queried about any potential practical reuse of the building, however given the limited need for office space associated with the industrial activity in the other buildings on the site, the use of the building is not deemed suitable. 6.9

Section 104D Particular restrictions for Non-Complying Activities Pursuant to s104D of the RMA if a proposal is a non-complying activity then it must pass at least one of the tests of either s104D(1)(a) or s104D(1)(b) before an application can be assessed to make a decision under s104B of the RMA. If the application fails both tests of s104D then the application must be declined. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the threshold test of s104D because as demonstrated in section(s) 6.2 above of this report the adverse effects on the environment will be no more than minor and the proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of (Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) as concluded in section 6.7 above of this report. From the above section 104D assessment it can be concluded that the application meets both of the tests of s104D of the

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 20

RMA. Therefore the application can be assessed against the provisions of s104B of the RMA and a substantive decision made. 6.10 Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) of the RMA The purpose of the RMA under s5 is the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic well-being while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment. Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for, and includes among other things and in no order of priority, the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage. Section 7 identifies a number of “other matters” to be given particular regard by a council in the consideration of any assessment for resource consent, and includes the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. Section 8 requires a council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The proposal is considered to be a sustainable use of mixed use zoned land as the demolition of the villa will provide for further development of a site that has greater development potential than currently being utilised. Section 6 is relevant to the proposal, however for reasons set out in this report it is considered that the removal of the building is acceptable. There are no other matters that need to be considered under Section 7 and the proposal is not relevant to Section 8. Overall the application is considered to meet the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as the proposal achieves the purpose of the RMA being sustainable management of natural and physical resources. 6.11 Lapsing of Consent Section 125 of the RMA provides that if a resource consent is not given effect to within five years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it automatically lapses unless the consent authority has granted an extension. In this case, it is considered five years is an appropriate period for the consent holder to implement the consent due to the nature and scale of the proposal. 6.12 Conclusion Overall, it is considered that the proposal meets the relevant statutory tests of Section 104, 104B and 104D. No weighting assessment is required in terms of the PAUP and Operative Plan, as outcomes under the assessments of both plan provisions are the same. Given that the heritage values associated with the villa have been assessed to be moderate, the location of the villa within a predominately industrial setting, the condition of the villa, the Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 21

usability of the building as a residential dwelling, and the weighting of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, it is considered that the proposal is appropriate. The proposal is consistent with and not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, while any actual and potential adverse effects upon the environment would be as such that they would be no more than minor in scale. It is therefore considered that the activity has met the statutory tests required to gain approval and it is therefore recommended that consent be GRANTED, subject to appropriate conditions. 7.0

RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS

7.1

Recommendation Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, it is recommended that under sections 104, 104B, 104D and 108 of the RMA, consent be granted to the noncomplying activity application by David McDonald Trust for the demolition of the villa located at 30 Princes Street being Lot 1 DP 31364 (R/LUC/2014/2474). The reasons for this decision are as follows: a)

The proposed development passes both ‘gateway tests’ of section 104D and so the merits can be considered. Specifically:  

b)

The adverse effects of the proposal will be no more than minor. The proposal will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant Plans for the reasons set out below.

In terms of section 104(1)(a) of the RMA, the proposed development would result in actual and potential effects that, when viewed in the context of the heritage values associated with the villa, the context of the subject environment and balanced against the positive effects that would result, are of a nature that are acceptable in the circumstances and no more than minor in scale. This is because:  The adverse effects on the heritage values of the environment will be minor as relative to the values inherent in the place as found, which have been assessed to be moderate at best. 

c)

The physical act of demolishing the building will adversely effect the surrounding environment to a minor degree, however this will be temporary and not beyond what can be expected by this activity.

In terms of section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, the proposal is consistent with, and not contrary to, the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan for the following reasons:  The inherent values associated with the building are considered moderate at best and therefore the demolition is not considered inappropriate as the demolition would not result in the loss of considerable historic heritage.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 22











d)

7.2

The physical integrity of the building has been affected via lack of ongoing maintenance and fire damage but also substantially through the modification and removal of historic features, including the brick chimney and the rear leanto, also the historic value of the site has been significantly reduced by the previous removal of the stone and brick bakehouse from the site. The villa now lacks meaningful context due to the removal of the stone and brick bakehouse and the significant industrial and commercial buildings and uses on the subject site and within the surrounding environment. The current use and location of the building within a predominately industrial and commercial area is not entirely appropriate with respect to providing adequate residential amenity. There will be no cumulative effect of the loss of the villa on the adjoining historic heritage buildings as currently the villa is surrounded by modern industrial buildings and has no direct visual connection to the adjoining buildings. The demolition of the villa will allow for further development of the site to maximise its potential and that is consistent with the sites zoning and surrounding development.

No weighting assessment is required in terms of the PAUP and Operative Plan, as outcomes under the assessments of both plan provisions are the same.

Conditions Under section 108 of the RMA, this consent is subject to the following conditions: General Conditions 1.

The demolition of the existing villa at 30 Princes Street shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all information submitted with the application, being:  Application Form, and Assessment of Effects prepared by Gary Deeney of Positive Planning Ltd, dated 24 June 2014.  Specialist report, titled Heritage Impact Assessment, Condition Assessment and Photography Survery, prepared by Archifact Limited, dated 10 September 2014, revision A and additional information, all referenced by Council as R/LUC/2014/2474.

All Charges Paid 2.

This consent (or any part thereof) shall not commence until such time as the following charges, which are owing at the time the Council's decision is notified, have been paid in full: (a) All fixed charges relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent under section 36(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); and (b) All additional charges imposed under section 36(3) of the RMA to enable the Council to recover its actual and reasonable costs in respect of this application, which are beyond challenge.

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 23

3.

The consent holder shall pay any subsequent further charges imposed under section 36 of the RMA relating to the receiving, processing and granting of this resource consent within 20 days of receipt of notification of a requirement to pay the same, provided that, in the case of any additional charges under section 36(3) of the RMA that are subject to challenge, the consent holder shall pay such amount as is determined by that process to be due and owing, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant decision.

PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Monitoring Charges 4.

The consent holder shall pay the Council an initial consent compliance monitoring charge of $270.00 (inclusive of GST), plus any further monitoring charge or charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs that have been incurred to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to this consent. Advice Note: Compliance with the consent conditions will be monitored by Council (in accordance with section 35(d) of the RMA). The initial monitoring charge is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests, reviewing conditions, updating files, etc, all being work to ensure compliance with the resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, inspections, in excess of those covered by the base fee paid, shall be charged at the relevant hourly rate applicable at the time. Only after all conditions of the resource consent have been met, will Council issue a letter on request of the consent holder.

DURING DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 5.

All demolition, earthworks and construction works shall be restricted to the hours between 7.30am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 6.00pm Saturday. No such works shall occur on Sundays or public holidays.

6.

The consent holder shall ensure that the noise generated from the proposed demolition and construction activity at the application site shall comply with the provisions set out in Part 4A.1D Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section).

7.

There shall be no obstruction of access to public footpaths, berms, private properties, public services/utilities, or public reserves resulting from the demolition activity. All materials and equipment shall be stored within the subject site’s boundaries.

Term of Consent / Duration 8.

Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent lapses five years’ after the date it is granted unless: (a)

The consent is given effect to; or

(b)

The Council extends the period after which the consent lapses

OTHER CONDITIONS 7.3

Advice Notes

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 24

1. The consent holder shall obtain an Authority to modify an archaeological site from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust prior to any works occurring on site. 2. The consent holder shall obtain all other necessary consents and permits, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the Historic Places Act 1993. This consent does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval. Please check whether a building consent is required under the Building Act 2004. Please note that the approval of this resource consent, including consent conditions specified above, may affect a previously issued building consent for the same project, in which case a new building consent may be required. 3. A copy of this consent should be held on site at all times during the establishment and construction phase of the activity. The consent holder is requested to notify Council, in writing, of their intention to begin works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencement. Such notification should be sent to the Team Leader Central Monitoring (email: [email protected]) and include the following details:    

name and telephone number of the project manager and the site owner; site address to which the consent relates; activity to which the consent relates; and expected duration of works.

Report prepared by:

Charlotte Belsham

Planning Consultant

Signed: Date:

12 March 2015

Report reviewed, and approved for release by:

Shannah Leamy

Planning Team Leader

Signed: Date:

12 March 2015

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 25

Section E Definitions

COUNCIL:

means The Auckland Council

DISTRICT PLAN:

means any operative or proposed plan administered by any of the following former Territorial Authorities prior to 1 November 2010: Rodney District Council North Shore City Council Waitakere City Council Auckland City Council Manukau City Council Papakura District Council Franklin District Council and now forming the relevant section of the Auckland Council District Plan

REGIONAL PLAN:

means any regional plan administered by the former Auckland Regional Council prior to 1 November 2010, now known as: Auckland Council Regional Plan: Sediment Control Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (operative in part) Auckland Council Regional Plan: Farm Dairy Discharges Transitional Auckland Council Regional Plan

ACRPS:

means Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement

HGMPA:

means Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

LGAAA:

means Local Government Amendment Act 2004

Manager: NZCPS:

means an Auckland Council Manager or nominated Auckland Council staff acting on the Manager’s behalf means New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

RMA:

means Resource Management Act 1991 and all amendments

WRHAA:

means Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

Application No: R/LUC/2014/2474; 30 Princes Street, Onehunga

Page 26