Upload
duongquynh
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN THE MATTER OF: The Resource Management Act
1991.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: An application for Land Use
Resource Consent to redevelop
and expand an existing visitor
accommodation activity located
at 20 Peake Road, Cambridge.
BY: The Brian Perry Charitable Trust
Applicant
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD CHARLES FALCONER
27 October 2016
2
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
INTRODUCTION
1. My name is Richard Charles Falconer. I am a senior planner at BCD Group, an
engineering and planning consultancy based in Hamilton. I hold the qualification of
Bachelor of Science (Technology) majoring in Resource and Environmental Planning
from the University of Waikato and am an Associate of the New Zealand Planning
Institute. I have some 12 years’ experience in town planning and resource
management in both a Local Government (consent processing) and Private Sector
capacity across the Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Taranaki Regions.
2. My professional experience is specifically in the area of land use and subdivision
planning (resource consents) covering a broad range of developments including
commercial, industrial, residential, environmental and rural developments and
activities. I have recently been involved in both processing and obtaining resource
consents for several ‘non-farming’ developments within the greater Waikato Region,
in my capacity as Council’s (both Waikato and Waipa) consultant planner and for a
number of private clients.
3. I have read the “Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses” contained in the
Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014, and I agree to comply with this
Code. The evidence I will present today is within my area of expertise, except where
I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. I have not omitted to
consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I
express.
INVOLVEMENT WITH THE PROJECT
4. BCD Group was engaged by The Brian Perry Charitable Trust (the “Trust”) in June
2015 to provide town planning consultancy services in relation to the redevelopment
and expansion of the existing visitor accommodation development at 20 Peake Road.
I have personally been involved in this project and consent process since it was first
presented to BCD Group by the Trust.
3
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
5. The scope of my evidence will be to briefly describe the proposal, outline the
relevant District Plan matters and reiterate my assessment of the actual or potential
adverse environmental effects, noting the context of the existing receiving
environment. I will also comment on the matters raised by the submitters.
6. I have reviewed the s42A report prepared by Council’s Reporting Planner, Ms Hayley
Thomas. Overall, I generally agree with the assessment of the proposal in relation to
the relevant planning provisions, and its recommendations. However, I have reached
a different conclusion with respect to the standing of the proposal against particular
objectives and policies; a matter I will discuss within my evidence. Notwithstanding
this, overall, I concur with the conclusions reached with respect to the effects of the
proposal and I support the recommendation that the consent should be granted,
subject to conditions.
7. I have reviewed the recommended conditions of consent which are set out within
Appendix 7 of the s42A report and, other than a few areas of disagreement, in my
opinion the draft conditions are appropriate and acceptable. However, I will discuss
the draft conditions in more detail later in my evidence.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND EXISTING LAND USE
8. The application site is located on Peake Road, approximately 170m north of its
intersection with Cambridge Road. The site is square and flat and comprises a total
area of 1.8801ha.
9. The site is presently developed with a single storey linear block located roughly in the
centre of the site which supports a consented visitor accommodation activity with a
maximum occupancy in the order of 25 guests. Adjacent the accommodation
buildings is a reception building which also accommodates a self-contained unit
4
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
utilised as a residence for an on-site manager. Other buildings include several small
feed barns to the east and west of the accommodation building.
10. The existing visitor accommodation activity has a reasonably well documented
history on this site, with the first consent granted in 1991 which involved the
conversion of a stables building on site for short stay ‘bed sit’ accommodation.
Further planning and building consents were granted thereafter, the combination of
which generally representing the scale, form and intensity of the activity that
continues to operate.
11. In my view, the current visitor accommodation activity on site has clear and
legitimate existing use rights to operate from this rural property. This point will be
reflected further on in other sections of my evidence.
12. The site is also occupied by a two storied dwelling located in the south eastern
corner, which is presently tenanted separate of the visitor accommodation activity.
This dwelling has its own formed vehicle entrance from Peake Road adjacent the
southern boundary of the site. The dwelling will continue to support a residential
tenant and does not otherwise comprise part of the proposed visitor accommodation
activity.
13. Between the reception and accommodation blocks is a car parking and circulation
area for the accommodation activity which is accessed via a formed entrance from
Peake Road. The remainder of the site comprises open pasture with only the site
perimeter enclosed by fencing. The entire eastern boundary and part of the western
(road) boundary is enclosed by way a barberry hedge. The site supports several
mature trees which stand alone or comprise an ordered vegetative screen or shelter
belt.
5
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
SURROUNDING CONTEXT
14. The pattern of development surrounding the site is characterised by small rural lots,
including rural-residential lifestyle blocks, some of which include the keeping of
horses and other light grazing activities. There is a notable absence of any large,
high intensity rural activities, such as dairy. The adjoining site at 16 Peake Road is a
relatively small residential lot which supports no rural use.
15. There are also a number of non-rural activities within the locality including a retail
garden centre approximately 100m to the south (‘Amber Nursery’), a substantial
international cycling facility (‘Avantidrome’) with public bike skills park (‘Gallagher
Bike Skills Park’) and a private school on a large rural campus (St Peters School), all of
which are located on the southern side of Cambridge Road. Ms Ryder’s landscape
and visual assessment has further detailed the character of the area and I concur
with her assessment.
16. Ms Makinson has described in detail the existing roading environment adjacent the
site and I do not intend to duplicate this in my evidence, other than to note that I
concur with Ms Makinson’s description.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
17. This proposal is described in detail within the assessment of effects report submitted
with the application, within the further information dated the 26th of September
2016 and within the s42A report. I do not intend to repeat this description in great
detail. However, by way of a summary, the proposal comprises the re-development
and expansion of the existing visitor accommodation development. In broad terms
the proposal comprises the following:
Demolition/removal of the existing accommodation buildings and reception
building;
6
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
A new purpose designed visitor accommodation development to support up
to 86 guests within a campus-like environment exhibiting a from and design
of building exhibiting a ‘rural aesthetic’;
A variety of self-contained accommodation typologies including studios, two
bedroom units and dormitory-style accommodation;
A central reception building incorporation a self-contained manager’s
residence;
A guest services building accommodating meeting rooms, communal laundry,
bathrooms and a utility/workshop space, all for the exclusive use of guests;
Two-way vehicle entrance from Peake Road to a one-way sealed carriageway;
Car parking for 37 cars, including two for the manager, with provision for
parking for larger vehicles (buses, trailers);
Generous landscaped grounds including an open communal green, generous
planting throughout the development and a planted earth bund along the
northern and western boundaries;
Stormwater management on site by way of an engineer designed ground
soakage system which has been notionally located adjacent the southern
boundary.
Wastewater management by way of a tank on site which is to be pumped to
an existing private wastewater line owned by St Peters, itself connecting to
Councils reticulated wastewater network;
Water supply to be provided by way of a combination of an existing bore
(both on site and/or from St Peters), rain water collection and a new
connection to Council’s reticulated trickle-feed system.
DISTRICT PLAN ASSESSMENT
18. The site is zoned Rural under the Proposed Waipa District Plan (PDP). Council’s
intramaps identifies a small slither of the property as being comprised of filled
ground and, overall, classifies the site as comprising ‘high class soils’. The area of
7
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
filled ground sits well away from the proposed buildings and vehicle carriageways.
The ‘high class soil’ classification is described in more detail further on in my
evidence.
19. The proposal triggers resource consent with respect to the provisions of the PDP for
the following matters:
Rule 4.4.1.5 (b) – Non-complying Activities – the proposed visitor
accommodation activity, including the ancillary manager’s residence, is not
provided for in the Rural Zone as a permitted, controlled, restricted
discretionary or discretionary activity – Non-complying Activity;
Rule 4.4.2.1 (b) – Minimum Setback from Road Boundary – the proposed non-
residential services building exceeds 100m2 and is located 22m from the road
boundary where a 30m setback is required – Discretionary Activity;
Rule 4.4.2.9 (a) – Building Coverage – the proposal has a total building
coverage of 10.1% where 3% is the maximum permitted – Restricted
Discretionary Activity;
Rule 16.4.2.15 (a) – Parking, Loading and Manoeuvring – Car parking spaces
numbered 23-35, and the manoeuvring space that supports them, are located
within the road boundary setback – Discretionary Activity.
20. Overall, the application is classified as a Non Complying Activity, being the overriding
status of the application based on the activities for which resource consent is
required.
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
21. The proposal will give rise to a variety of effects on the receiving environment which
differ in character and degree. I consider that the AEE and s42A report address the
relevant effects associated with the proposal, including positive effects. I would like
to briefly touch on the principal effects of the proposal.
8
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
Permitted baseline/ Existing environment
22. As noted, earlier, the site is developed with a visitor accommodation development
within an occupancy of up to 25 guests. This activity has been legally established
and subject to several planning consents held by Council, which were included with
the application. Therefore, the activity has a permitted baseline of what has been
consented as the comparison for which to commence consideration of the effects of
this proposal against. In my view, the permitted baseline is an integral part of any
assessment of effects with respect to the proposal.
23. The s42A report addresses other permitted rural activities that could be established
on site. These activities are principally farming activities, with provision for one
principal dwelling and one secondary dwelling. The bulk and location rules (site
coverage, height, setbacks etc) set a baseline in terms of, what the PDP considers, an
appropriate scale of building(s) for a Rural Zoned site. The proposal exceeds the
maximum site coverage but is otherwise generally consistent with all other bulk and
location provisions and, with respect to height, significantly less than what is
permitted.
24. In consideration of the scale of the site and the scale of the development, I agree
with the findings of the s42A report with respect to the accepted permitted baseline
being of marginal value in terms of establishing a reasonable permitted effects
threshold from which a comparison can be drawn. The legally established activity
operating on the site is the realistic and appropriate permitted baseline to consider
effects against as this forms part of the existing environment onsite.
25. The existing environment off the site in the surrounding area is limited to permitted
rural uses, but the future land use change to a more urban zoning, as suggested by
the Waipa Growth Strategy, should, in my opinion, be taken in to account.
Rural Character, Amenity and Visual Effects
26. The s42A report includes a detailed analysis of the rural character and amenity
effects of the proposal, including a discussion of the site context and the context of
9
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
the wider environment, all of which make a contribution to the specific character of
this locality. The s42A report concludes that, subject to consent conditions, the rural
character, amenity and landscape effects are consistent with the surrounding
environment. In my view, this conclusion suggests that the effects of the proposal in
this regard are minor and acceptable.
27. Since the drafting of the s42A report, the Trust has engaged Boffa Miskell to prepare
a detailed landscape and visual assessment of the proposal. The assessment has
been summarised within the brief of evidence prepared by Rebecca Ryder, which has
been tabled. By way of a brief summary, Ms Ryder is satisfied that the proposal is an
appropriate use of the site, acknowledging that the site already provides for visitor
accommodation and that the site locality is not a pristine rural environment. Ms
Ryder has suggested a number of relatively subtle refinements to the layout and
configuration of the development to further mitigate the potential adverse
landscape and visual effects. These refinements include:
The reconfiguration of the large central car parking area through the use of
smaller groupings of car parks;
The expanse of paving and the use of linear edges should be reduced;
The buildings and pedestrian spaces should be better integrated with the
open greenspace which will be resolving by addressing bullet point 1;
Mature trees adjacent the entrance should be retained, where practicable;
The earth bund should gently slope up from the western and southern ends
to the apex in the north eastern corner, rather than be an abrupt, angular
formation;
The planting of the bund should comprise a hedgerow supplemented with
large scale tree planting
28. Overall, with the incorporation of the recommended refinements to the plans, Ms
Ryder is satisfied that any rural character and amenity effects will be minor and
acceptable on the surrounding environment.
10
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
29. The project architect, Mr Peter Chibnall, has described the design theme which has
incorporated the rural aesthetic in recognition of the site setting, and this theme is
carried through into the site layout, the scale and form of buildings, materials and
landscaping. Mr Chibnall has presented updated plans which capture some of the
changes recommended by Ms Ryder.
30. The applicant has agreed to adopt these further recommendations of a landscape
specialist to mitigate and avoid amenity and visual effects on the neighbours, so
therefore I recommend these amended plans be tabled as a substitute for the plans
submitted previously by the applicant and upon which the s42A report has been
based.
Acoustic Effects
31. The Trust’s acoustic specialist, Mr Rhys Hegley of Hegley Acoustic Consultants, has
provided expert comment on acoustic matters pertaining to the specifics noise
generating characteristics of the proposal and the effects of this noise on the
receiving environment. Overall, Mr Hegley is satisfied that the noise generated by
the facility will comply with the PDP noise limits at all notional boundaries, with the
exception of 10 Peake Road, the owners of which have submitted in support of the
proposal.
32. The s42A report concludes that noise effects from the proposal will be no more than
minor citing this conclusion is based on the expert opinion of Mr Hegley, the
endorsement of this opinion by Council’s own Environmental Health Officer and the
recommended conditions of consent. I concur with this conclusion.
33. I support the recommended noise conditions set out within the s42A report as being
appropriate mitigation of noise effects associated with this proposal. Mr Hegley, has
suggested minor changes to several noise conditions that I will note within my
summary of the draft conditions to follow.
11
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
Traffic Effects
34. You have heard expert evidence from the Trust’s traffic engineer, Mrs Judith
Makinson from Traffic Design Group (TDG), including a detailed description of the
roading environment, the expected additional traffic generation of the activity, the
design of access and circulation and the supply of parking. Overall, Mrs Makinson is
satisfied that the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be readily
accommodated by the roading network and that the proposed design of access and
parking is suitable for the expected users. Overall, Mrs Makinson has concluded that
the activity can be accommodated by the roading network with less than minor
adverse effects.
35. Two of Council’s Development Engineers have agreed with the opinions of Mrs
Makinson, which echo those earlier expressed within the traffic assessment
prepared by Mr Will Hyde, also of TDG, submitted with the application.
36. The s42A report has considered the collective expert opinion provided by TDG and
Council engineers and concludes that, subject to conditions, the traffic effects of the
proposal will be minor. In my opinion the appropriate conclusion with respect to the
degree of effects by consideration of the traffic experts evidence collectively, is that
the traffic effects will be less than minor.
Reverse Sensitivity
37. The s42A report provides a statement about what constitutes a reverse sensitivity
effect, as determined in case law, that I do not intend to repeat. The predominant
land use surrounding the site is small scale lifestyle farming activities and rural
residential development including the keeping and training of horses and the raising
of other dry stock, including cattle and sheep. The s42A report notes that based on
the site size and locality, it would not readily support a large scale or intensive
farming activity, a position that I agree with.
38. The development’s rural environment is a point that will be marketed as a positive
feature to potential guests. Guests will be aware of the rural setting of this
12
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
development and will naturally make their own decisions about whether this type of
environment - with its sights, sounds and smells - suits their requirements or not.
People that may not be attracted to such characteristics will simply chose not to stay
there.
39. As noted in the s42A report, all activities within the Rural Zone, whether permitted
or not, must comply with the PDP provisions relating to noise, dust and odours. The
PDP sets the expectation for what is reasonable in terms of effects that farming
activities may give rise to. In which case, any noise, dust or odours received at the
subject site, irrespective of the nature of the development occurring there, are
expected to be no greater than what the PDP permits.
40. Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been purposefully designed to address any
potential reverse sensitivity effects which are relevant to the site context. The units
have been clustered away from adjoining properties that support farming activities
achieving the minimum separation distances of 15m from all boundaries, a condition
that is imposed upon all residential dwellings in the Rural Zone.
41. The planted earth bund provides a physical barrier to the properties to the north and
west, which provides privacy and acoustic protection, while vegetation on the bund
will be an effective visual screen and means of controlling potential effects such as
inflow of dust into the site. This earth bund will effectively insulate the development
from the potential reverse sensitivity effects associated with the permitted rural
activities on these adjoining properties as well as containing effects generated by the
proposal within the site.
42. The s42A report concludes by stating that a “no complaints covenant” is ‘suitable
mitigation’ for the potential reverse sensitivity effects, a position that I contest. I
consider that the mitigation sought by the no complaints covenant far exceeds the
potential scale, intensity, duration and frequency of the potential reverse sensitivity
effects associated with the proposal being also specific to the site context. I consider
that the commercial use on site, beside rural uses, already has a legal right to be
13
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
there. Further the design and layout of the site, including specific mitigation, in
combination with PDP rules associated with retaining noise, dust and odour to a
reasonable level within one’s own site, are adequate to ensure that the potential for
reverse sensitivity effects are a negligible to minor risk.
43. For these reasons, I do not agree with or support the “no complaints covenant”
suggested in the Section 42A report. In any event, it is my understanding that such a
covenant could only require a consent holder as landowner (not third parties such as
guests) to not complain about legitimate and permitted rural activities, as you
cannot remove the legal rights of persons to challenge illegal or non-compliant
activities. To this end, such a covenant has no real meaning in the context of this
application, does not have a proper planning purpose, and seeks to impose an
unnecessary encumbrance on a legal title.
Water, Wastewater and Water Supply (Three Waters)
44. There has been no expert evidence presented today with respect to three waters
management for the proposal. For specialist comment on this matter, I have relied
on the ‘Engineering Investigation Report’, prepared by BCD Group, dated 30 June and
submitted with the land use consent application (‘BCD Report’). The BCD Report
describes the proposed three waters management to a concept level of detail.
These I have briefly described in my earlier summary of the proposal.
45. The proposed wastewater management system relies on constructing a new pipe
from the site to an existing private wastewater pipe running along the southern side
of Cambridge Road. The Trust have obtained approval of the owners of this private
line, St Peters, for this new connection. A formal agreement will be reached upon
the preparation of detailed engineering plans. Council’s Development Engineer has
confirmed that this means of wastewater management is preferable to on-site
management. Earlier discussions with Council’s Assets team, via Mr Murray James,
noted that Council’s reticulated system could accommodate the wastewater loading
of the proposal with specific management.
14
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
46. Overall, the three waters management measures described within the BCD Report
have been accepted by Council’s Development Engineers, in principle, as being
appropriate. Several consent conditions requiring detailed engineering plans for
water supply, stormwater and wastewater services to be provided for approval prior
to occupation of the development have been recommended. I support these
conditions as drafted.
47. Overall, based on the expert advice within the BCD Report and the endorsement of
this report by Council’s own engineers, I am satisfied that any adverse effects related
to three waters management will be less than minor, with such effects adequately
mitigated by the recommended conditions of consent.
Positive Effects
48. The s42 report provides a brief summary of the positive effects of the proposal,
specifically those highlighted by the submissions in support of the proposal. I concur
with this summary of positive effects.
Assessment of Effects Conclusion
49. Overall, the s42A report has concluded that the adverse effects of the proposal will
be minor, subject to the mitigation offered by the proposed conditions. I concur
with this conclusion, subject to some suggested changes to conditions that I will
discuss further.
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
50. The assessment of effects report and s42A report provide a detailed assessment of
the objectives and associated policies relevant to the proposal. In broad terms, I
agree with the s42A assessment insofar as it relates to the objectives and policies
relating to the strategic policy framework of the PDP, infrastructure, and
transportation. From the discussion of the Rural Zone objectives and policies, it
would seem that the main point in question is with respect to Objective 4.12.3 and
15
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
its associated Policy 4.12.3.1 a) which relate specifically to non-farming land uses
within the Rural Zone.
51. This objective and its associated policy is set out as follows:
Objective - Non-farming activities
4.3.12 Only non-farming activities that have a functional and compelling
requirement to locate in the Rural Zone should be enable to locate in the Rural
Zone.
Policies - Non-farming activities
4.3.12.1 To limit non-farming activities in rural areas except for activities that:
(a) Have a functional and compelling reason to establish in a rural area; and…
52. Objective 4.12.3 and Policy 4.3.12.1 a) both echo the same theme in terms of non-
farming activities requiring both a functional and compelling reason to establish in
the Rural Zone.
53. It is clear that the proposal does not involve the ‘establishment’ of a non-farming use
in a rural area because a non-farming activity, being the existing visitor
accommodation development, has already been established on site. The proposal
involves building upon this existing non-farming activity, which is an activity that is as
much a part of the character of this particular locality as the rural residential
subdivision and development that has occurred over the last 25 years. I stand by my
view that it is the established visitor accommodation activity which constitutes the
compelling reason behind the continuation of this non-farming use on this site. It is
not the need to occupy a site in the Rural zone that has driven this development, but
the desire to continue and expand this existing use.
54. In terms of the ‘functional’ requirement of Objective 4.12.3 and Policy 4.3.12.1 a), it
is my view that this ideal is satisfied by virtue of the proximity of the site to the
Avantidrome, and other St Peters sporting facilities, all of which hold sporting events
and tournaments and run activities that have already demonstrated a demand for
reasonable quality short term accommodation that is not currently being met. These
16
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
facilities frequently attract people to the district who require quality accommodation
and it is expected that a large proportion of guests will be directly related to events
and activities occurring within these facilities. Having interdependent activities so
close to one another is likely to reduce other effects associated with the activity
including improved transport efficiency (shared travel of groups/teams) and
potentially use of alternative modes of transport, specifically bicycles. The
accommodation has been specifically tailored to sporting groups, including cyclists,
so that it will provide for the specific needs of these user groups.
DISCUSSION OF SUBMISSIONS
55. The application was publicly notified at the request of the Trust. The decision to
notify the application was based on the desire of the Trust to get a balanced view of
the proposal with input from the wider community.
56. A total of 26 submissions were received 23 of which were in support of the
application and 3 in opposition. Of the 23 submissions in support, 4 were received
from property owners immediately adjacent the subject site. In particular, the
submissions highlight the broadly contrasting views towards the proposal of
property owners adjacent the site.
57. The s42A report and Appendix 4 provide a succinct summary of submissions
including a map specifying the locality of submitters with respect to the site. One
notable omission from the map is the location of Campbell and Margaret Watts,
owners and occupiers of 21 & 27 Peake Road directly opposite the site (west), who
have submitted in support of the proposal.
58. The 20 submissions from parties outside of the immediate environment are all in
support of the proposal. These submitters represent local business and tourism
agencies and sporting bodies, the latter providing a cross section of the target
demographic for the accommodation development. These submissions echo a
similar theme of a shortage of accommodation for visitors to Cambridge.
17
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
59. I wish to devote some time to a discussion of the submissions in opposition to the
proposal and to provide a response to some specific matters that have been raised
within them. The three submissions in opposition include those received from Janet
Shaw, the BR & UM Earnshaw Partnership and a joint submission on behalf of K & M
Plowman, T & K Saunders and V & K Earnshaw (the ‘joint submission’). Broadly
speaking, the joint submission addresses all of the points covered in the submissions
of Ms Shaw and the BR & UM Earnshaw Partnership, and in much greater detail, so
my discussion will focus on the content of the joint submission.
Introduction
60. The joint submission presents several contrasting outcomes with respect to the
decision sought from Council, such as that the application be declined and the
existing visitor accommodation cease, that the number of guests of the proposal be
limited to the same number of guests as the existing facility, that ‘material and
tangible’ mitigation be undertaken to counter adverse effects (eg bunding) and that,
if the proposal proceeds, that Council consider re-zoning the site and adjoining sites.
61. Council is limited in the consideration of the activity that forms the basis of the
proposal. The fate of the existing visitor accommodation activity is not balanced on
the outcome of this consent process, being protected by way of a legal consent
which has continued to be exercised.
62. The joint submission considers that bunding is a measure that will mitigate adverse
effects in a material and tangible manner, a point that I agree with. I don’t consider
that it is appropriate for Council to re-zone the site and adjacent sites in response to
this proposal. However, as the Waipa Growth Strategy is realised, it is likely that a
change in zoning to reflect the changing land use from rural to residential would
occur on a more comprehensive basis. Development within the growth cell that the
site is part of is presently anticipated to commence within 10 years.
18
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
Target Market
63. The joint submission, includes discussion of the ‘target market’ of the proposed
visitor accommodation and refutes claims made within resource consent application,
and supporting documentation, that the target market of the development is,
broadly speaking, sporting groups. For the avoidance of doubt, and to echo the
evidence presented by representatives of the Trust, the proposed visitor
accommodation has been designed to target sporting groups that will be expected to
represent a high proportion of bookings, as the numerous submissions from sporting
groups would suggest. The facility will also welcome casual guest bookings, as and
when available. All of the evidence you have heard today is aligned in consideration
of the primary target market and other expected guests.
Accommodation requirements
64. The joint submission includes an extensive discussion of the supply of motel
accommodation in the Waipa District and concludes this discussion by suggesting
that ‘there is no shortage of motel accommodation in the Waipa District now or
foreseeable by 2020’. The basis of this position appears to be founded in data
collated from ‘The Department of Statistics’ dated May 2016, and from information
derived from a report prepared by Property Economics (January 2015) in support of
the resource consent application cited in the joint submission.
65. Tania Witheford, of The Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, has addressed this
matter through her submission. Essentially, Ms Witheford is of the opinion that
Cambridge does in fact have a shortage of quality accommodation and that the
proposal will help by contributing to local supply. In particular Ms Witheford has
noted a particular spike in accommodation demand during sporting events in the
district, a point which satisfies the Trusts objectives in terms of the user groups the
facility is targeting.
Amenity Values
66. The joint submission describes the occupants of the dwellings and the farming
activities occurring on the properties owned by the parties to the joint submission
19
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
and the amenities that they are concerned will be compromised by the proposal.
The weight of evidence presented today addresses the potential effects of the
proposal on the amenity of this locality.
67. In particular, the joint submission notes that each of the parties to the joint
submission use their land for the keeping and training of horses. The joint
submission raises concerns with respect to the impact that the proposal may have
on the wellbeing of the horses due to extra activity, noise, traffic and glare. Mr
Hegley has summarised some literature regarding the impact of noise on horses (and
other animals) and, in his opinion, is satisfied that the noise characteristics of the
proposal will not give rise to any unreasonable effects in this context. Glare has
already been noted as being limited to a rule in the PDP and I note the proposal will
comply with this rule. Adding to that, it is not intended that any fixed lighting be
readily visible from the adjoining properties due to its placement and screening such
that it would create any nuisance to residents or animals. The matter of headlight
sweep within the site, while specifically exempt from the provisions relating to glare
when of a short duration, has also been addressed through the incorporation of the
earth bund and boundary planting that will be subject of a landscape plan condition.
68. The joint submission notes concerns with respect to the proposal setting a precedent
for commercial development within the area. The locality already supports a variety
of non-farming uses, including the subject site. In my view the proposal sets no
precedent for further non-farming development, given the specific nature of activity
that already exists on the site and the size and locality of this rural site.
Integrated Traffic Assessment (ITA)
69. The joint submission includes critique of the ITA prepared by TDG submitted with the
application. Mrs Makinson has responded to the salient points within the joint
submission in relation to the ITA, specifically the traffic generation characteristics of
the facility, including an assessment of the facility as a standard motel, the parking
adequacy of the site, again noting parking demand from a standard motel and the
potential for additional pedestrian and cycle traffic. I will not repeat the comments
20
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
of Mrs Makinson in this regard. As a specialist in the field of transportation
engineering, I favour the opinions expressed by Mrs Makinson with respect to the
potential traffic effects of the proposal.
Acoustics Report
70. The joint submission also challenges the Acoustic Assessment prepared by Hegley
Acoustic Consultants, also submitted with the application. Mr Hegley has responded
within his brief of evidence and I will not repeat this material. Again, as Mr Hegley is
an expert in the field of acoustic engineering, I have relied on his expert opinion on
acoustic effects.
Lighting and Glare Effects
71. Lighting and glare has not been the focus of discussion within the AEE submitted
with the application because the proposal is not seeking any waiver from the
permitted lighting and glare provisions set out within Section 20 of the PDP. By
complying with these standards, I consider that any lighting and glare effects
generated by the proposal will be within the permitted baseline of effects in this
regard and of a degree which is reasonable. The s42A report includes conditions of
consent relating to lighting and glare and I will discuss these conditions also further
in my evidence.
Code of Conduct
72. The joint submission highlights several perceived shortcomings of the ‘Code of
Conduct’ framework that was submitted with the application. I note that this was
submitted as a generic guiding document to symbolise the Trusts commitment to
ensure that not only would the facility be designed in a manner which was
compatible with the receiving environment, but so too would the behaviour of
guests of the facility be compatible with the qualities of the locality. I accept that
the Code of Conduct would have benefitted from additional details or explanations
of the broad ‘policies’, however, I am satisfied that the ‘Centre Management Plan’
that is required to be prepared for Council approval prior to the uplift of any building
consent for the development will be far more detailed and, on this basis, a more
21
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
appropriate means of mitigating the effects of guest behaviour. As a condition of
consent, the implementation of the Centre Management Plan will be enforceable
under the Resource Management Act.
Risk Management
73. The joint submission suggests that a full risk assessment be prepared taking account
of a number of factors including the location of the visitor accommodation facility,
number of patrons, the target market and several other measures to address effects
of the activity on surrounding residents. I consider that all relevant RMA effects
have been addressed in the application and evidence presented today and will be
implemented through the recommended conditions of consent.
DISCUSSIONS OF CONDITIONS
74. I have reviewed the recommended conditions of consent set out within Appendix 7
to the s42A report. Generally, I agree that the proposed conditions will effectively
mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal. However, I wish to make several
comments with respect to amendments to these conditions.
75. Condition 2 states the no more than 88 persons, including staff, shall be catered for
on site at any one time. I wish to reiterate that the site also accommodates a
separate residential dwelling that forms no part of this proposal. For the avoidance
of confusion on the part of the monitoring team, I suggest the wording be amended
to the affect that the 88-person restriction applies only to the visitor accommodation
activity.
76. Condition 4 imposes a restriction on the use of the communal kitchen. Rather than
the wording ‘to be used for (sic) only by guests’, I would suggest the alternate
wording ‘to be used in a manner which is ancillary to the visitor accommodation
activity’.
22
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
77. Condition 6 refers to the withdrawal of ‘consent LU/0045/16’ and, while there is no
opposition to this condition, it should be noted that this reference number is an
application that is presently sitting on hold, rather than a consent which has been
issued.
78. Condition 8, in my view, reads more like an advisory note than a condition of
consent. There are detailed signage provisions in the PDP which this proposal is not
seeking to dispense with. Accordingly, I suggest that the rule is a more practical
means of addressing signage effects or, alternatively, advisory note to this affect
would be acceptable.
79. Conditions 9 and 10 address lighting that may create a nuisance beyond the site.
The standards for lighting and glare are set out under Rule 20.4.2.2 of the PDP and it
is noted that the proposal is not seeking to dispense with these rules. However, if
Council is of the mind to impose conditions in this regard, then I would like to
suggest that these are in keeping with the wording of Rule 20.4.2.2 which is as
follows:
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, provided that the following activities are exempt:
(a) Street lights, navigation lights and traffic signals; and
(b) Headlights of moving vehicles or vehicles which are stationary for less than
five minutes; and
(c) In the Rural Zone, lighting or glare from vehicles being used for farming
activities and agricultural equipment.
80. I support the approach within Condition 10 that a Council officer be charged with
determining whether lighting constitutes a ‘nuisance’. I consider there is also merit
23
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
to the inclusion of an additional condition requiring the preparation of a lighting plan
to be submitted for approval by Council prior to lighting installation.
81. Condition 11 addresses the requirements of a landscape plan to be submitted for
approval prior to the issue of building consent. I would like to clarify the wording of
subsection b) which currently suggests that all plants be no less than 1m at time of
planting and that all plants along the perimeters of the site shall be no less than 2m
in height, presumably also intended to be at time of planting. The expectation is
that landscaping proposed for the site will comprise a myriad of functions, from
screening to amenity planting around buildings. I appreciate some discretion will be
exercised on the part of Council with respect to this planting but I would like to
suggest the following alternate wording which I consider addresses what this
condition is looking to achieve:
b) All plants that are for the express purpose of providing visual screening of the
development, as opposed to general amenity planting around buildings, shall
be spaced as close as possible to one another, taking account of the specific
growth habit of the particular species. Such plants shall be no less than 2m
high at time of planting.
82. Condition 12 addresses the timing of planting. It is common practise that the timing
of planting coincide with the ‘planting season’ (generally the 1st of April to 30th of
September), which provides the best environmental conditions for plant
establishment. I would like to suggest that this wording be included in this condition
to the affect that planting be completed within the next planting season following
the completion of construction.
83. Condition 16 suggests imposition of a no-complaints covenant understood to be
intended to protect the rural activities occurring within 6 adjacent properties,
including properties owned by parties that have submitted in support of the
proposal.
24
Evidence 20 Peake Road, Cambridge
84. A covenant of this nature is usually offered by an applicant to address concerns from
a significant and regionally or nationally recognised land use (e.g.
National/International Airports) that has been identified as needing protection from
new and likely conflicting land use activities coming into an area (e.g. residential
greenfield development). This is not applicable in this case. This condition is
considered inappropriate and unreasonable, for the reason set out in Paragraph 42
above and, in my opinion, should be deleted.
85. Mr Hegley, in his evidence, has suggested some changes to the wording of
Conditions 13, 14 and 15. I will not repeat those suggested changes here, but I will
simply say that I agree with those suggested changes.
CONCLUSIONS
86. Overall having reviewed this proposal against the Proposed Waipa District Plan
Objectives and Policies I have formed the view that this proposal satisfies these in
their entirety.
87. With respect to actual or potential adverse environmental effects that arise in
relation to the proposal, in my opinion these effects will be minor in extent and
acceptable within the context of the existing site use and surrounding environment.
88. Overall, in my opinion, consent should be granted to this proposal subject to the
imposition of the conditions as recommended by Council’s reporting planner and
subject to the suggested changes set out within my statement of evidence.