Report and Decisions on Submissions to, and on, Proposed Plan Modification 274 to the Auckland City Operative

District Plan 1999 (Isthmus Section): 317 Hillsborough Road and 34 Whitmore Road, Hillsborough, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland

Report to: From:

Auckland Council The Hearings Panel: Alan Watson (chair) Karyn Sinclair Harry Bhana

Date: Group File:

6 July 2011 314/209274

1.0

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS

The decisions are that Plan Modification 274 to the Auckland City Operative District Plan 1999 (Isthmus Section) is approved with modifications and that the submissions are accepted, accepted in part or rejected in accordance with that decision. The decisions are made pursuant to Clauses 29 and 10 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act or RMA) respectively.

2.0

INTRODUCTION

This decisions report addresses Proposed Plan Modification 274 (the plan change) to the Auckland City Council District Plan 1999: Isthmus Section (District Plan). The plan change is a request for a private plan change by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland (the applicant) at the Catholic Parish of St John Vianney and the adjacent property (physical addresses 317 Hillsborough Road, Mt Roskill, and 34 Whitmore Road collectively referred to as the site or the application site in this decisions report). In 2010 the former Auckland City Council and the Catholic Diocese entered into an agreement under the Public Works Act 1981, to provide for acquisition by the then City Council of the existing Monte Cecilia school site at 72 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough. The intent is to build a new school for the current Monte Cecilia School at the application site. To achieve this intent the plan change seeks to: rezone the site from Residential 6a (Medium Intensity Residential) to Special Purpose 2 (Education); amend some of the provisions applying to the Special Purpose 2 zone to more appropriately provide for sites with a dual use for education and religious purposes; and apply a Concept Plan to the site to provide for the comprehensive and integrated development of the land.

The total area of land subject to the plan change is approximately 2.6 hectares. It is located approximately 1.5km to the south of State Highway 20 - sitting along the northern side of the ridge occupied by Hillsborough Road. Deborah Rowe, a consultant planner, prepared a report on the plan change and the submissions for the Auckland Council (the Council) in accordance with Section 42A of the RMA, hereinafter referred to as the Section 42A report. The Section 42A report was prepared prior to the hearing and it included input from other Council specialists. That specialist input was in respect of arboriculture, acoustics, site contamination, earthworks/geotechnical, ecology, stormwater, transport and urban design. Ms Rowe recommended that the plan change be approved, with some modifications, and that submissions in support or in opposition to the plan change be decided accordingly in line with that recommendation. The Hearings Panel of Commissioners (Commissioners) have had regard to that report; to the plan change, including the Section 32 RMA report with it; to the written submissions received; and to the submissions and evidence presented at the hearing in making these decisions on the plan change and the submissions to it. The Commissioners also visited the site and the locality. As stated, the decision is to approve the proposed plan change with modifications and, in line with that decision to accept, accept in part or reject the submissions to it.

3.0

INITIAL COMMENT

We believe that we need to say at the outset that this was a hearings process filled with emotion and during which we received comments from submitters opposing the plan change that we are not able to factor into the decisions we are to make under the RMA. We do acknowledge the deep concerns of submitters in some of these respects who, for various reasons, do not wish to see the existing Monte Cecilia school closed and a future school opened at the application site. However, it is important that there is a clear understanding regarding what we can consider and what our role is. Our role is to assess the plan change, and the submissions to it, under the RMA and in doing so to particularly consider the suitability of the site for the proposed zoning and zone provisions to accommodate a future school. Accordingly, and as raised by the applicant1, matters that we heard that are not relevant are: Details of the Memorandum of Understanding and Public Works Act agreement between the applicant and the Council; Details of the existing Monte Cecilia school site and its buildings and whether it could be rearranged on that site; Details of the decile ratings of other schools in the locality of the site, whether parents in the locality would choose to use the future school, affordability of school fees and demographics of the local population.

In all of these respects we note that the Minister of Education has granted written approval to the relocation of the Monte Cecilia school to the application site with a roll of 227 pupils with a restricted intake of non-Catholics.
1

Reply submission from Michael Savage, pages 3, 4.

We will therefore not be commenting further on these various matters in this decisions report.

4.0

THE HEARING

The hearing was held at the Council Hearings Committee Room at the Auckland central offices of the Council in Greys Avenue, Auckland on 23, 24, 26 and 27 May 2011. The presentations had not been completed late on the Friday afternoon of 27 May 2011 so the hearing was adjourned so that the right of reply from the applicant could be received in writing. That was received on 9 June 2011. The Commissioners met on 22 June 2011, the delay in meeting being because the chair was out of NZ for part of that intervening period, to consider whether the right of reply needed to be presented at a reconvened hearing. The Commissioners were of the view that they had all the information needed to make the decisions on the plan change and the submissions and closed the hearing that day. Those in attendance during the hearing were: Applicant: Michael Savage, Legal Counsel Bishop Patrick Dunn Sister Katrina Brill Father James Mulligan Graeme Scott Registered Architect Jason Hogan, Landscape Architect Todd Langwell, Traffic Engineer Keith Ballagh, Acoustics Engineer Keren Bennett, Ecologist Malcolm Stapleton, Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Bruce McCabe, Environmental Consultant Iain McManus, Planning Consultant. Friends of Oakley Creek represented by Wendy John, Chairperson Wayne Houston Douglas MacLeod, also for Wayne Lunjevich and Marie Dempsey Claire Barry Roger Shearer Anthony Bonisch William Duncan Monte Cecilia Board of Trustees represented by Michael Jamieson, Deputy Chairman Michael Jamieson as an individual Friends of Monte Incorporated represented by Anthony Bonisch, Michael Jamieson, Wes Edwards, Traffic Engineer and Bob Demler, Planning Consultant with these representatives also being for Chris Scahill, Ingrid Sharp, Pauline OFlaherty, Brian Lewis, Jane Gogarty, and Simon and Simone Hertnon. Anne Nicholson, also for Susan Mulrennan, David Morris, Maree Raffles, Edward Raffles and Anthony Raffles. Deborah Rowe, Reporting Planner Pravin Dayaram, Traffic Engineer Nicola Williams, Urban Designer Christian Vossart, Acoustics Consultant

Submitters:

Council Officers:

Lakshmi Nair, Stormwater Engineer Rebecca Stanley Natural Heritage Specialist (not in attendance) Joshua Ong, Committee Secretary Hearings.

5.0

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The main part of the site at 317 Hillsborough Road is currently occupied by the St John Vianney Catholic Parish and has been developed with a church, a separate parish centre and a presbytery (residence for the parish priests). That part of the site at 34 Whitmore Road is currently occupied by a single residential dwelling. The land to the south of 34 Whitmore Road is used for pedestrian access to the Parish land. The existing vehicle access to the site is from Hillsborough Road via a two lane driveway and adjacent footpath. This access has a gradient of approximately 1 in 7. Pedestrian access is also available from Whitmore Road south of 34 Whitmore Road. Parking is provided for 110 vehicles on the sealed area around the church and leading to the parish centre, and parking for approximately 30 additional cars is available on the grassed area to the immediate north of the church. The remainder of the site is predominantly in grass with scattered pockets of low vegetation. An intermittent watercourse traverses through the northern portion of the site. The site is surrounded by reasonably low intensity residential development to the north along Florence Daly Place; to the south along Whitmore Road and Hillsborough Road; to the east along Hillsborough Road; and to the west along Whitmore Road. The site is identified on Council records with an additional limitation being H05-04 Airport Approach Height control, and portions of the site (along the western edge and approximately along the main watercourse) are identified as being subject to flood risk. The legal description of the site is, for the Hillsborough Road part, Lot 15, DP 43427 on C.T. NA1321/82 and for the Whitmore Road part, Lot 178 DP 44204 on C.T. 13C/958. 6.0 THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SITE

The site is currently zoned Residential 6a in the District Plan. That zone provides for medium intensity residential development. It is described in the District Plan as a zone which is intended to provide for a wider range of activities than is permitted in the lower intensity residential zones, while also achieving a reasonable level of amenity. The objective of the Residential 6a zone is to provide for medium intensity residential neighbourhoods in appropriate locations. The Residential 6 zone is the most widespread residential zone on the Isthmus. The District Plan maps indicate that there are no individually scheduled trees, archaeological features, geological features, or heritage sites on or adjacent to the site. However, there are 15 trees or groups of trees that are protected under the General Tree Protection rules of the District Plan that are located within the plan change area.

7.0

THE PROPOSED ZONING AS PART OF THE PLAN CHANGE REQUEST

The applicant seeks to rezone the subject site from Residential 6a to Special Purpose 2 (Education). The Special Purpose 2 zone is applied to the majority of the schools within the Isthmus part of Auckland City (inclusive of 18 other Catholic parish and school sites). It

recognises the primary value of facilities located within it as places of education and research, and that these facilities have additional community value as a location for a range of community uses not necessarily associated with their primary educational or research function. In addition to rezoning the site, the applicant wishes to amend the objectives, policies and other provisions applying to the Special Purpose 2 zone to better recognise and provide for the parish activities currently taking place on the site and on the 18 other Catholic parish and school sites already zoned Special Purpose 2. Furthermore, the applicant wishes to apply a Concept Plan to the site to provide for the long term and integrated use and development of the site. Further details on the proposed Special Purpose 2 (Education) zone are set out in in the next section of this decisions report. 8.0 8.1 THE PLAN CHANGE DETAILS Special Purpose 2 Provision Amendment

The plan change seeks to add an objective and three additional policies which will apply to sites with a dual function of providing for educational and religious purposes. The additional objective and policies are as follows: Objective To provide for the efficient use and development of sites which have a dual function for education and religious purposes, while ensuring that any adverse effects are avoided or mitigated. Policies By providing for places of assembly where sites have a dual use for educational and religious purposes. By adopting controls which seek to protect the privacy and amenity of surrounding residentially zoned sites. By permitting parking to be shared between site activities where peak use does not coincide. Minor consequential amendments are also proposed to the zone description, zone strategy, expected outcomes, rules and assessment criteria to similarly recognise that some of the sites within the zone have a dual function of providing for educational and religious activities. 8.2 The Concept Plan 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8.2.1 Activities Development controls Applications for resource consent Criteria for assessing restricted discretionary activities Concept diagram. The Concept Plan consists of five parts:

These components are described in more detail below. Activities

The activities on the subject site are divided by the Concept Plan into three categories; permitted activities, restricted discretionary activities, and discretionary activities. The Concept Plan provides for a range of permitted activities, with a focus on residential, community, and educational uses. The following are specified in the Concept Plan as restricted discretionary activities: The construction of Replacement Works defined under the Public Works Act agreement with Council, or any part of the Replacement Works;2 Use of outdoor artificial lighting producing an illuminance in excess of 150 lux measured at any point on the site in a horizontal or vertical plane at ground level; and Any activity not complying with the specified development controls.

8.2.2

Development controls

In addition to the controls within Parts 4A, 5C, 5D, 11, and 12 of the District Plan (except where amended below), the Concept Plan outlines the following summarised development controls:

Building Location - All buildings shall be contained within the building platforms identified on the Concept Plan diagram. Maximum Building Coverage - Building Platform A - 50% (5,869m2); Building Platform B -25% (510m2); Building Platform C - 35% (742m2). Maximum Height Building Platform A - RL 78.0; Building Platform B - RL 76.0; Building Platform C - RL 82.0; elsewhere - 8 metres above the finished ground levels following completion of the preparatory site works undertaken as part of the Public Works Act agreement with Council.

Maximum Building Height in Relation to Boundary - No part of any building shall project above a 45 degree recession plane measured from any point 2 metres above the ground level along any boundary of the site. Retaining Walls various height and orientation restrictions are applicable. Activity Buffers various landscape elements are required in order to provide an appropriate level of amenity along the Whitmore Road frontage of the site and appropriate buffers to the adjoining residential properties. Noise Construction and operational noise limits are outlined. Additionally, acoustic fencing is required.

The Replacement Works are the works to replace the existing Monte Cecilia school with a school with the same number of pupils (227).

Parking A minimum of 95 permanently formed and marked parking spaces shall be provided. Additional parking may be required subject to provisions 8b d. Vehicle Access Up to three vehicle crossings are permitted for the site. Hillsborough Road access is permitted to be reconstructed, widened or otherwise altered to a maximum gradient of 1 in 7.

8.2.3

Applications for resource consent

This section of the Concept Plan stipulates the information to be provided and notification / assessment processes required for restricted discretionary activities, namely the Replacement Works. 8.2.4 Criteria for assessing restricted discretionary activities This section of the Concept Plan sets out the assessment criteria to be used when assessing resource consent applications for: The construction of Replacement Works; Outdoor artificial lighting producing an illuminance in excess of 150 lux at ground level; and Development control modifications. 8.2.5 Notification and assessment of restricted discretionary activities This section deals with the procedures for notification of restricted discretionary activities and provides that any application for construction of the Replacement Works or any element thereof shall be considered without the need for notification, written approval, or service of notice on affected persons. 8.2.6 The concept diagram

The Concept Diagram outlines the extent of Building Platforms A, B, C as well as various other controls and requirements. 9.0 THE SUBMISSIONS

The plan change was notified on 18 October 2010 with the closing dates for submissions and further submissions respectively being 15 November and 17 December 2010. One hundred and seventy five submissions were received and five further submissions. The decisions sought by the submitters generally fall into five groups, as set out below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Decline the plan change (161) Decline, or accept with amendments (2) Accept with amendments (2) Accept the plan change (8) No decision sought stated (2).

Pursuant to Clause 10(1) of the First Schedule of the RMA, these five categories or groups will be used for the decisions on the submissions. We discuss the submissions below under headings that reflect the issues raised by the submitters. Eleven of the submissions, all from Chris Scahill, were received by the Council on 16 November 2011, one day after the closing date for submissions. We note that the submissions, which oppose the proposed plan change, follow a standardised approach and are the same as other submissions received in time. We resolved to accept the late submissions as below: Pursuant to Sections 37 and 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991, the time period for accepting submissions is extended by 1 day in order to receive the late submissions by Chris Scahill as valid submissions for the reasons that the submissions raise no issues that are not otherwise raised in other submissions, are only one day late and in our opinion that extension will not directly affect the interests of any persons. We have otherwise given regard to the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal and our duty under Section 21 of the RMA to avoid unreasonable delay.

10.0

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Section 74 of the RMA sets out the matters to be considered by a territorial authority in preparing or changing its district plan. These matters include doing so in accordance with its functions under Section 31, the provisions of Part 2 and its duty under Section 32. Further, also having regard to other documents, including regional planning documents, management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts and iwi planning documents. Section 75 of the RMA, in addressing the contents of district plans, requires that a district plan must give effect to any national policy statement, any NZ Coastal Policy Statement any regional policy statement and must not be inconsistent with a regional plan. Section 31 addresses the functions of territorial authorities under the RMA and includes: (a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district; (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, Section 32 RMA provides for the consideration of alternatives, benefits, and costs and requires that an evaluation must be carried out and that the evaluation must examine: (a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and (b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. For the purposes of this examination, an evaluation must take into account the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods. Part 2 of the RMA, being the purpose and principles of the statute, is the overarching part of the RMA. Regard is to be given to all matters within it.

Clause 29 of the First Schedule states that after considering a plan change a local authority may decline, approve or approve with modifications that plan change and shall give reasons for its decision. Clause 10 of the First Schedule states a local authority must give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in the submissions and must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting any submissions. In doing so a local authority may address the submissions by grouping them according to the provisions of the plan change to which they relate or the matters to which they relate and, may include matters relating to any consequential alterations necessary to the plan change arising from the submissions. A local authority is not required to give a decision that addresses each submission individually.

11.0

THE PANELS CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ISSUES RAISED BY SUBMITTERS The Concept Plan

11.1

In our considerations of the rezoning of the site for the purposes of a school we have found the proposed Concept Plan has some distinct shortcomings. The applicant advanced an Indicative Development Plan (IDP) as an example of the school development that could result from the Concept Plan. The applicant stated it was necessary to develop the IDP in order to satisfy itself that the desired school arrangement could be provided for upon the site including the various aspects of it such as buildings, car parking and access, and sports facilities. We have similarly found that the IDP is a sound means for our considerations. However, application of the Concept Plan sought to be included in the District Plan by the plan change does not guarantee that the form of development shown on the IDP will follow. That was readily pointed out by the applicant. That produces a difficulty for us insofar as we have found that development enabled by the Concept Plan could potentially result in greater adverse effects within the neighbourhood and on the environment than was indicated by the IDP. We have concluded that before we were able to include the applicants proposed Concept Plan in the District Plan, we would want to provide some additional restrictions in it. Otherwise we find that it would be too general for the purposes of inclusion in the District Plan. The particular difficulties include: If the proposed large building close to the south west boundary of the site is developed to a greater degree than is shown on the IDP then there could be associated greater adverse effects on the residential properties that lie to the west of it. The Building Platform A controls in the Concept Plan do not provide a limitation on the specific location of that building and there is a relatively generous floor area provided for that platform. Within Building Platform B there is an allowance of 2,040sqm for Buildings used for Recreation or Educational Facilities with a building coverage of 25% and development controls relating to height. Although the IDP sees that area being developed for ground level recreational facilities there is no assessment for future buildings on that platform in relation to the residential properties that lie to the west of it, other than the application of the development controls.

On Building Platform C the Concept Plan provides for 2,120sqm of building development over 35% of the platform although no development, other than the existing presbytery, is shown on the IDP. We received no satisfactory response to questions to the applicant about the extent of residential development that may be planned for that platform other than the possibility of two residential units required for the Parish Priest and former Parish Priest. The building form/size and the particular nature of the residential activity that may take place upon that building platform are sufficiently undefined for us to be concerned about the potential for adverse effects on the environment. In order for the car parking provided on the site to be sufficient for the purposes intended, and to provide for access to it, the vehicle access along the south west boundary of the site, as shown on the IDP is needed. That however, is not specifically provided for on the Concept Plan meaning that we cannot be satisfied that sufficient car parking can be arranged upon the site. We acknowledge the development control requiring 95 car parks on the site but we are asked now to determine the suitability of the site for a school and the on-site car parking is a significant factor in that current assessment.

We are not satisfied that the levels of development enabled by the Concept Plan are able to be adequately assessed given the traffic constraints and proximity of residential neighbours. Once the Replacement Works have a consent, development of a school for up to 400 pupils could follow without the need for further resource consents. Under Development Controls - 8 Parking (b) there is a trigger that requires a resource consent in the event that the school expands to a level where the parking requirements for a school under Part 12 of the District Plan exceeds the number (95) of parks on the site. However Part 12 sets the parking rate for schools as 2 per classroom so the school would need to expand beyond 47 classrooms before that came into effect. We consider that the effects of traffic at the Hillsborough Road access and adequacy of parking for a school of 400 pupils plus the effects of dominance and shadowing on properties to the south and southwest have not been adequately assessed. It is readily apparent that it will be difficult to provide a greater number of car parks on the site than proposed for the Replacement Works (95). One of the issues is that the IDP has been used as an illustration of the likely form of development but is not included in the plan change provisions. To an extent the assessment criteria 1(a) provides for some architectural guidelines but will not sufficiently limit bulk and associated effects. In these respects it is our finding that the IDP needs to form part of the plan change in order that the applicants assessment of effects on the environment, and our similar assessment, results in the range of environmental effects that we have anticipated from our considerations of it. If that IDP is to change in any material manner, then the adverse effects that we have considered may be different and in that case we believe any components that are changed need to be specifically considered. We conclude that the Concept Plan provides for development considerably in excess of the IDP. The Concept Plan is also too simplistic, we believe, for inclusion in the District Plan without some accompanying more defined indication of the resultant development from it. We see the need for the IDP to form part of the plan change and any material change in building disposition or other details from those shown on the IDP to require further assessment by way of a discretionary activity application. We have given close consideration of the details provided on the IDP and find that the site is suitable for rezoning to provide for the Replacement Works, if the works are in conformity with

10

the IDP. However, and as we raised during the course of the hearing, we are concerned that any other form of school or educational activities should be subject to the closer scrutiny of discretionary activity applications if such are advanced at a future time. As discussed throughout this decisions report there are limitations on the use of this site for school purposes. Those limitations can be satisfactorily addressed in the context of the Replacement Works but need to be specifically addressed in the context of any additional development envisaged for the site. The limitations we refer to include: The ability to provide sufficient car parking on the site; The limitations on vehicle exit to Hillsborough Road; The traffic generation of any school facilities greater than the Replacement Works; The potential impacts of different locations for buildings and greater building bulk upon the site upon neighbouring residential properties.

For these reasons, as otherwise discussed in this decisions report, the Concept Plan provisions need to be changed to provide only for the Replacement Works as a restricted discretionary activity with the construction of any educational facilities prior to or instead of the Replacement Works and further, any educational facilities, being listed as discretionary activities. The above amendments to the Concept Plan, being the inclusion of the IDP and the change to the activity status for other educational facilities, means that we, and submitters with concerns in relation to these matters, can have a confidence that the site can be used for the Replacement Works in the manner shown on the IDP with any material changes to that IDP or other educational or associated facilities receiving further consideration on the basis of a discretionary activity application. We find from all our considerations of this plan change application that is a reasonable balance to be struck in relation to it. 11.2 Traffic Generation

The applicant confirmed during the hearing that the majority of the parish activities will continue to operate outside of school hours to ensure that for the majority of the year the traffic generation and parking considerations for the school can be considered separately and/or complementary to the parish activities. We accept that funerals held during the day will not be in accord with this separation but we do not expect that the additional activity in the area, or the incidence of on-street car parking during the day, for a short time, will be any more than a minor adverse effect. 11.3 Hillsborough Road Access

The existing access from Hillsborough Road is well established and there are no significant opportunities for upgrading it due to its narrow road frontage. The limited visibility for drivers exiting the site from this access was noted by all the traffic experts providing input to the proceedings relating to the application. Todd Langwell stated in his evidence that the site distances available were very limited and fall well below the guideline he referred to in his evidence. Although he noted there is no recently recorded crash history to suggest a safety problem, he said that it is difficult turn right from the site onto Hillsborough Road and that most motorists appear to avoid turning right where possible. He recommended, on the basis of an increase in vehicle movements from the site for the school activity, that the right turn movement be prohibited from the site at this access point during the school peak times. Mr Langwell pointed out there is no evidence to suggest that the same restriction should apply outside of

11

these times and the church activities should be able to continue to function as they presently do.3 This concern had also been highlighted in the Traffic Report from Mr Langwell included with the application and in the input to the Section 42A report by Pippa Mitchell. Ms Mitchell recommended that during the week the Hillsborough Road access should only be for teachers and people attending parish activities. That is, no pupil drop-off or pick-up is to be permitted off Hillsborough Road, with the availability of the Whitmore Road car park area for dropping off and picking up children providing a viable alternative to assist in enforcing this measure. She saw this restriction being given effect to by the installation of appropriate signage, implementation of management techniques and the provision of removable bollards to prevent vehicle movement through the site during the week days. Ms Mitchells recommended that a mechanism be included in the Concept Plan requiring these arrangements. We note that the Concept Plan text provides for the consideration of this matter of right turns movements from the site onto Hillsborough Road as one of the listed assessment criteria, and enables the Council to impose conditions in relation to the use of vehicle crossings to the extent necessary to achieve the outcomes referred to in the assessment criteria. Ms Rowe reported that she was of the view that the current provisions of the Concept Plan are satisfactory to require detailed assessment and inclusion of consent conditions as necessary to address this matter. We find this is a fundamental issue to be addressed in relation to determining the suitability of the site for school purposes. There does need to be a restriction on no right turns out of the Hillsborough Road access by school traffic during peak (drop-off and pick-up) school times (as part of development control relating to Vehicle Access) rather than it being left as an assessment criterion and further, that all drop-off and pick-up be at the Whitmore Road access in order that peak time activity can be satisfactorily managed by the school. We have modified the Concept Plan accordingly. 11.4 Through-Site Access

The IDP shows essentially two car parking areas, one immediately alongside the Whitmore Road access and another larger area to the south of the site which can be expected to be accessed from Hillsborough Road. The IDP shows the two car parking areas connected by a vehicle access that will run along the south west edge of the site. The assessment criteria in the Concept Plan include a criterion that enables the Council to consider whether adequate measures are proposed to discourage excessive and unnecessary use of the vehicle link between Hillsborough and Whitmore Roads. This is presumably to avoid it being used as a through-site link. To support this view the Councils reporting traffic engineer (Ms Mitchell) recommended that this link be physically closed during the week between the hours of 6am to 6pm with it opened at other times at the discretion of the school and/or parish. Ms Mitchell sought that be included in the Concept Plan. In the Section 42A report Ms Rowe saw this detail as more appropriately being imposed at the resource consent stage rather than being imposed within the Concept Plan. She considered that the framework of provisions within the Concept Plan would enable the Council to consider this matter at the resource consent stage and to impose conditions accordingly, subject to a slight amendment to one of the conditions that may be imposed to include the word use so that it reads:
3

Evidence of Todd Langwell, paras 63 to 66 incl.

12

The layout, design and use of vehicle parking and circulation areas.. Mr Langwell saw a restriction on the use of the link between 6am and 6pm as being a very blanket control and agreed with the approach of Ms Rowe.4 We are of the view that it is essential to allow access to all of the car parking areas on the site in order that the on-site car parking is fully utilised for the school and other activities on the site. We are also mindful of the desire to discourage excessive and unnecessary use of the vehicle link between Hillsborough Road and Whitmore Road and in this respect acknowledge that, at times, there will be a need to prevent such access by way of a chain or similar across a part of the vehicle access. That may be more appropriate at a point close to the southern pedestrian entry to the proposed school buildings rather than further to the north west along the vehicle access in order that potentially a further 33 car parks (in addition to the 30 car parks off Whitmore Road) are available for school purposes. This is particularly important as part of ensuring the Whitmore Road access is fully utilised by parents for drop-off and pick-up of pupils for the school. We find that the opportunity to close the vehicle link through the site is required and that needs to be balanced against ensuring satisfactory provision of car parking on the site for school purposes. That can be achieved by way of amendments to the wording of the assessment criteria relating to this matter to read: Adequate measures are proposed to discourage use of the vehicle link between Hillsborough and Whitmore Roads by parents of pupils at the school. In particular, those measures to include the closing of that vehicle link at appropriate times, such times and the precise point for that closure to be arranged so that the maximum amount of car parking is available for school related purposes. 11.5 Whitmore Road Access

The information from the applicant was that the church and parish related activities would largely continue to operate from the Hillsborough Road access and the new school would operate from the Whitmore Road access. That would allow each to have a defined entrance and ensure that the car parking and associated drop-off/pick-up area for pupils off Whitmore Road can be efficiently managed by the school. Mr Langwell pointed out in evidence that it would be important to prohibit on street parking within the vicinity of the access point to Whitmore Road at certain times to ensure suitable sight lines and commented that is normal at school access points. Whilst yet to be confirmed, the access options for Whitmore Road are likely, we were informed, to take the form of two vehicle access points providing separate entry and exit movements which assist in minimising conflicts between exiting and entering vehicles and maximises circulation within the site during the higher intensity school peak times.5 We find that is a sensible arrangement which can readily be managed at peak drop-off and pick-up times by the school. It is the manner that is often arranged at other schools to ensure the optimum use of the available space and that it is carried out in a safe manner. It is the case that with the same people dropping off and picking up children each day that such management is more easily achieved.
4 5

Ibid, paras 156, 157. Ibid, paras 68 to 70 incl.

13

Mr Langwell stated that Whitmore Road is expected to see an increase in week-day traffic flows that during peak times are predicted to double. He stated that needs to be seen in the context that the existing flows for the street are low and, although they may appear significant as a percentage, are relatively minor in the context of the spare capacity within the street. He said the carriageway width along Whitmore Road is typically about 9m wide which is sufficient to accommodate two-way flow provided there is not too much parking on both sides of the road. His observations at various times of the day suggested that the occurrence of parking is not significant and long sections of Whitmore Road are clear of parking and it is not common to see cars parked directly opposite each other. Mr Langwell did however point out that there could be times when parked cars would disrupt traffic flow with that being exacerbated during a school peak time when the number of vehicle movements in the street will increase. He noted however that the school peak periods will occur for about 30 minutes twice a day on school days only and for the rest of the time moderate to low flows similar to existing flows in the street will occur. Mr Langwell recommended banning parking on one side of Whitmore Road either permanently or on school days in those areas where congestion may occur, such as near the school entrance to reduce any risk of congestion.6 Ms Mitchell recommended that a Traffic Management Plan be developed to direct/control the drop-off/pick-up operation with such a Plan including instructions to parents as to how this could most efficiently be operated. We find that there would be some inconvenience associated with more noise and potential congestion around relatively short periods of the day and further, that restrictions on car parking would be necessary on-street. We do not find these effects to be of significance in traffic terms and for those effects to be capable of mitigation with some restrictions on on-street car parking. Such restrictions are unlikely to significantly inconvenience local residents. We acknowledge that whilst these traffic effects can be addressed there is a residual amenity related effect in terms of the greater activity at certain times of the day and the need for parking restrictions on the street. However, we do not find these effects to be significant enough to require us to reject the Replacement Works upon the site with access to and from Whitmore Road. The Concept Plan requires, as part of the information to be provided, the construction of a car park and pick up/drop off zone with vehicle access to and from Whitmore Road. The assessment criteria include the Council having to be satisfied that vehicle access and parking areas will provide for safe and efficient vehicle circulation on-site so that the potential for adverse effects on the roading network is minimised. These provisions will provide for these matters to be satisfactorily addressed. 11.6 Traffic Effects on the Wider Road Network

There was comprehensive information included in the application and we also received expert evidence on behalf of both the applicant and submitters that addressed the traffic effects of the proposal on the wider road network, that is, beyond the immediate access points to the application site and the site neighbourhood. We are satisfied that the proposal will not create any adverse effects of concern in these respects, including the impact on the capacity of the roads and road intersections. 11.7
6

Car Parking

Ibid paras 83 to 91.

14

The Concept Plan requires, as a development control, a minimum of 95 car parking spaces on site as part of the Replacement Works (227 pupils). Mr Langwell was of the view that will be more than sufficient to meet any peak parking demands when the school is first established and to ensure any parking for the activities does not impact on the surrounding road network. He had arranged for a parking survey to be carried out at the existing Monte Cecilia School during peak traffic periods which indicated the peak demand for parking reached 48 and 51 cars during the am and pm periods respectively. That was based on a school role at the time of 173 pupils. Extrapolating that demand to a role of 230 pupils produces a peak parking demand of 64 and 68 spaces respectively when the proposed school would be first established. This is well within the proposed provision of parking of 95 spaces. He also extrapolated those results to a school role of 400 pupils, based on 78% of pupils arriving or leaving by car. That resulted in a car parking demand of 91 and 96 parking spaces which again is acceptable given the minimum of 95 spaces to be provided on the site. Wes Edwards, providing traffic evidence on behalf of the Friends of Monte Cecilia School, was of the view that the proposed parking provision was inadequate with respect to the number of spaces provided and with respect to the location and arrangement of the parking areas. He also undertook a survey of vehicle movements and parking demand at the existing Monte Cecilia School during the afternoon peak and observed that the peak number of vehicles on the site was calculated to be 65. This number could easily vary by 10% he said, depending on the exact arrival or departure time of each vehicle. His calculated likely parking demand for a similar school of 400 pupils was 118 car park spaces based on the applicants survey or 150 spaces based on his own survey. He was of the view that travel behaviour of the school indicated that 95% of pupils travel by car. Mr Edwards concluded that to ensure the parking supply able to be provided on the site is sufficient, the maximum roll of the school should be restricted to 215 pupils.7 We find that the car parking to be provided on the site will be sufficient for the purposes of the Replacement Works. Both traffic engineers (Messrs Edwards and Langwell) confirmed this would be the case. We note the differences in the calculations between the respective traffic engineers and in this respect which does serve to highlight a concern regarding how the on-site car parking would be arranged for a larger number of pupils upon this site. That in itself is one of the reasons we have decided that any school facilities beyond the Replacement Works would require discretionary activity consideration. Such an application for a larger number of pupils would most likely be following the establishment of the Replacement Works at which time there would be better data to base projections upon in respect of car parking demands. In commenting on the car parking as above, we note, as was accepted by the parties to the plan change, that the school and church and parish centre activities will not often coincide such that any demand for on-street car parking is not expected to occur. It was highlighted to us that there will be regular funerals conducted from the church which would see a greater demand for car parking but if that did mean there was some overflow of car parking demand to the local roading network we do not see that as being an adverse effect of any great consequence. 11.8 School Travel Plan

Evidence of Wes Edwards, paras 35 to 50 incl.

15

The preparation of school travel plans is an accepted part of schools in urban areas. The intention is to reduce the level of vehicle trip generation and therefore reduce the impacts on the local road network. Ms Mitchell recommended an addition to the list of conditions that may be imposed on the Replacement Works to give effect to the provision of a school travel plan, that requiring the school to commence with the investigations, development and implementation of a school travel plan together with the Auckland Transport School Travel Plan Co-ordinator. We agree, and have included such a condition in the modified plan change. 11.9 Bus Access and Manoeuvring

The evidence from the applicant was that buses would only be required at the site for the purposes of school trips or similar and are not expected to be used for the regular transporting of children to and from the school. The IDP shows that if it was necessary a bus would be able to park in the entry isle off Whitmore Road to the site but this would have to be managed by the school in order that it did not conflict with the car parking on that part of the site. The applicant did provide a tracking curve indicating that in a managed situation a bus could enter and leave the site. We find that any arrangements for buses can satisfactorily be dealt with as part of the consideration of a resource consent given that one of the assessment criteria requires the Council to be satisfied that the Whitmore Road access facilitates entry, exit and movement through the car park by buses. 11.10 Effects on Residential Amenity The development of the site for a school will have amenity effects which, apart from being assessed in absolute terms, should be assessed relative to the development of the site for 40 to 50 houses in accordance with its current zoning. The concerns raised by submitters included visual, sun and light, privacy and noise. The key effects in these respects relate to the properties located to the south and south west of the site and particularly potential over-shadowing of those properties. The properties to the north and east of the site are generally elevated in relation to the site and are unlikely therefore to experience some of the amenity effects that may be of concern. The Concept Plan has provisions relating to building height and height in relation to boundary and, at least on the IDP, the focus of buildings is towards the centre and southern side of the site. These will serve to ensure that any effects of shading, dominance and privacy on adjacent properties from buildings will be avoided. Further, provided those effects are satisfactorily addressed, we do not believe that school buildings and grounds generate adverse effects in terms of visual amenity. The retaining walls have the potential to contribute to shading or a sense of dominance over the properties which adjoin them and in this respect the Concept Plan sets out a series of associated requirements that include limiting the extent of exposed face of the walls, requiring compliance with the height in relation to boundary controls and dense planting between the walls and adjacent residential boundaries. The Concept Plan includes an associated assessment criterion to specifically address this potential adverse effect and there is already substantial vegetation screening on the south western boundary of the site. All fencing is similarly required to comply with the applicable height and height in relation to boundary controls

16

which again will serve to limit the height of fencing and any associated effects on adjoining residential properties. We are reasonably satisfied that those Concept Plan provisions will serve to avoid or sufficiently mitigate any residential amenity effects of an adverse nature, with our residual concern being the properties to the south and south west of the site. We remain concerned about the potential shading although we acknowledge the height, height in relation to boundary and controls on the retaining walls are directed at limiting any such shadowing effects. However, the difference in site levels together with the undefined location of buildings close to these boundaries means there is potential for adverse impacts in these respects unless carefully assessed as part of a future RDA application with regard to the assessment criteria included in the Concept Plan. We conclude that the Concept Plan provisions are sufficient to address the range of effects on residential amenity in ensuring that there are no adverse effects of significance in this respect and subject to our above views regarding the IDP being part of the plan change. 11.11 Arboricultural There are thirty six trees identified as being Generally Protected on the site of which nine would require removal to facilitate the proposed works. Other trees may need to be pruned or specifically protected to facilitate the project works. Although the General Tree protection rules in the District Plan will cease to have legal effect for trees in urban environments by January 2012, as a result of recent amendments to the RMA, the application site is greater than the site size included in that amendment such that any tree which is generally protected will remain so after that date. This means such trees will require separate resource consent prior to any removal from the site. We form the view from all the information and our visits to the site that any loss of trees or vegetation will be suitably compensated for by application of the landscape planting provisions included in the Concept Plan. 11.12 Noise The Concept Plan includes noise provisions specific to the site and in relation to activities classified as operational activities; special day events; or, special evening events. The special day events and special evening events are limited to twelve events each per year. The noise provisions also include the provision of acoustic fencing on or adjacent to the Residential zone boundaries of the site as part of the Replacement Works. The noise situation has been the subject of a report prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics with the application which was reviewed for the Council by Christian Vossart, Acoustics Engineer. These considerations indicate that the development of a school at the site will result in an increase in noise levels when compared to those currently generated from it but that most activities will emit noise within the levels anticipated within a residential area. Those activities which are expected to generate noise levels in excess of these normal residential limits are some outdoor school activities associated with day-to-day school operations; special school/parish/community events; and, use of the car park area before the early Sunday Mass and after the Christmas Eve Mass. There would also be some increase in noise levels associated with the increased traffic on Whitmore Road. We heard evidence from Keith Ballagh of Marshall Day and find agreement with him insofar as:

17

Schools are an expected integral part of residential environments and while noise from childrens recreation can at times exceed Residential zoned noise limits, childrens play is a normal residential activity and there is general community acceptance of such activity. In accordance with the Special Purpose 2 (Education) zoning sought, the noise limits which apply to this site would exempt noise from normal school recreation activity between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm. Noise from normal school recreation activities is generally expected to be less than 50 dBA L10 on adjacent residential sites but noise levels might on rare occasions exceed 55 dBA L10 at some houses on the northern boundary which are two stories and elevated above the school site. This would be infrequent and for short periods and the nature of the noise is generally accepted by the community. Some relaxation of the zone noise limits is provided for a limited number of special events. Noise from other sources of school activity including car parking is expected to easily comply with normal residential noise limits.

We are satisfied the Concept Plan has appropriate provisions in relation to noise such that any adverse effects generated by noise from the proposed uses of the site will be minor. 11.13 Site Contamination We received comprehensive evidence from Bruce McCabe, Environmental Consultant, on behalf of the applicant. He said a limited number of potentially minor sources of land contamination were identified at the site which included the possible use of pesticides as part of normal pasture maintenance when the land was farmed; a small area of what appears to be imported fill near the centre of the site to the north of the existing church; and, probable pesticide use at a community garden to the north and west of the existing hall. We acknowledge the specialist information provided by Dr McCabe although were most interested with his observations that this identified contamination would pose negligible potential health risks to children who may attend the school or any resident of the property providing produce grown in the soil is not consumed. He made specific reference to his understanding that vegetables would not be grown at the proposed school for human consumption. That consideration was in relation to a small area of land within the Presbytery grounds containing an elevated soil arsenic concentration. We note on the Concept Plan that is an area for potential future residential development and we would wish to ensure that there was absolutely no potential health risk associated with this identified contamination on the site. It was apparent from the evidence that such contamination effects are manageable but, in order to address concerns of submitters and ourselves, we have referenced the requirement for an application to remediate contaminated land under Rule 5E.7.4.1 of the District Plan. We consider that this will enable all aspects of the safety of those using the site to be addressed within an appropriate technical evaluation of the extent and nature of remediation measures that are required. 11.14 Earthworks/Geotechnical The redevelopment of the site will require substantial earthworks to form the playing fields, parking, and hard court areas, as well as the building platforms. Such redevelopment works are not unusual in the context of Auckland with its variable topography. Information included with the application, supported by the evidence of Malcolm Stapleton, Civil Engineer, indicated that

18

the site is stable and suitable for the proposed development and indeed the proposed works should improve the overall stability of the site. This information, that was reviewed by Paul Salter, Consultant Engineer for the Council, was that the earthworks can be suitably managed by way of controls routinely imposed by way of earthworks consents conditions in order to provide appropriate and adequate controls on the temporary effects. We note that resource consents are required under regional planning documents for earthworks prior to the development of the site. 11.15 Stormwater and Flooding The site is located in the Oakley Creek catchment which has downstream flooding problems such that a number of flood retention structures have, or are being developed within the catchment. In this case the applicant acknowledges the downstream limitations and that the site will need to be developed in a way that does not increase the loading on the public stormwater system, which can be achieved through the provision of on-site stormwater detention measures. Treatment of stormwater from the car parking and sealed areas on the site is proposed by way of filters with all details of detention and treatment being confirmed at the detailed/engineering approval stage. The application details were supported in evidence by Mr Stapleton and had been reviewed by Lakshmi Nair, Stormwater Consent Engineer for the Council. Ms Nair, along with some submitters, noted that the applicant identified a hard engineering measure for stormwater management with the use of detention tanks. However, alternative stormwater treatments, being referred to as soft engineering options, such as an at source approach to the reuse and attenuation of stormwater including rain water tanks are recommended by the Council to assist in achieving sustainable re-use of the water resource and reducing the load on the public stormwater system and reducing contaminant/sediment loading on the receiving environment. Wendy John, who appeared as Chairperson of Friends of Oakley Creek expressed a similar preference for soft engineering options. We acknowledge and agree with some of the points made by Ms John in these respects along with the advice of the reporting planner that reference should be made in the plan change to low impact design measures. We observe that a modified Concept Plan attached to Mr Savages right of reply, included in the assessment criteria, reference to incorporating low impact design (LID) measures in the overall stormwater management plan and we have accepted that amendment. 11.16 Ecology The applicant had provided a report prepared by Bioresearches noting that redevelopment of the site is expected to require the piping of the water course crossing the northern part of the site and either the modification or piping of the water course extending along part of the north west boundary of the site. These intermittent streams are able to be modified as a permitted activity under the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. The water courses are not capable of supporting aquatic life and do not support any riparian vegetation and are therefore of limited ecological value. The impact of modification of these water courses will be minor. Rebecca Stanley reviewed the details for the Council and concurred with the applicant although she did state it would be preferable if the proposed development of the site did not modify the water courses on the site.

19

We heard further from Keren Bennett of Bioresearches in evidence that the minor ecological effects are manageable given the stormwater control and treatment measures required to be put in place under the comprehensive stormwater catchment consent. She did not expect it to lead to any additional scouring, flooding, or contamination of the Oakley Creek. We agree. 11.17 Urban Design The urban design aspects of the proposal were detailed in evidence from Graeme Scott who highlighted the provisions included in the Concept Plan, particularly under the assessment criteria, to address urban design issues that will see the best design solution for the site. Some additions have been made to those criteria in line with the review of the application material by Nicola Williams, Councils Urban Designer, relating to the need to avoid blank building facades facing the Whitmore Road car park area and to ensure that adequate provision is made for unimpeded access into and around the site by users who may have impeded mobility. We find that the expert input by Mr Scott, along with the review by Ms Williams, satisfactorily addresses the urban design issues associated with the future school development on the site and will result in a built environment that meets up to date urban design aspirations. 11.18 Wastewater The evidence of Mr Stapleton was that the school would not overload the system provided that upgrades were carried out by Watercare in two downstream locations where wastewater capacity does not meet current design standards. This situation could be assisted, as pointed out in the application details, with peak loading use of the sanitary system deriving from the school occurring at times other than when the peak load occurs on the current system. The proposed development was not therefore expected to add to these stressed sections of the existing systems. The Watercare representative who was present at part of the hearing acknowledged the responsibility it had for upgrading the system to remove the current limitations to the wastewater capacity where it does not meet current design standards. We find this is a design detail that can be readily accommodated. 11.19 Construction Effects We accept the information with the application and the evidence that the earthworks and construction phases, and the associated effects of noise, traffic and sediment/dust, can be satisfactorily managed in the normal manner through a Construction Traffic Management Plan, a Construction Noise Management Plan, and controls on sediment and dust emission which will be required by the Council as part of future applications for these works. These measures are appropriate and commensurate with similar scale projects occurring elsewhere in the district. 11.20 Positive Effects The submitters understandably focussed on potential adverse effects of the plan change. As described however in the application, evidence and the Section 42A report, there are positive effects particularly associated with a new school in this area; the ability of neighbourhood families to use the playground and fields outside of school hours; and, an improved outlook for occupants of the houses along the north to north east edges of the site compared to the

20

development which would occur in terms of the Residential zoning of the site. The application of the Concept Plan will see an attractive development of the site providing a balance between built form and open space along with a more efficient use of this urban land resource. 11.21 Sections 31, 32, 74 and 75 RMA 11.21.1 National Policy Statements

There are no national policy statements to be taken account of in this case. 11.21.2 NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS)

This is relevant because the stormwater from the site drains via the Oakley Creek to the Waitemata Harbour and because there is potential for adverse effects on ecology, scouring flooding and contamination of the creek from the development provided for by the plan change. We have dealt with those issues above. We find that the plan change is consistent with the NZCPS, particularly given the measures to be included as part of the plan change provisions and there will also be future consideration as part of the applications to the Council for regional consents. 11.21.3 Auckland Regional Statutory Documents

The following are relevant to the consideration of the plan change: Auckland Regional Policy Statement 1999 (RPS), Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land & Water 2001 Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control 2001.

The RPS provides an overview of resource management issues for the region and includes relevant provisions regarding managing the use, development and protection of the natural and physical resources of the region. The District Plan must give effect to any regional policy statement. A key focus of the RPS is on managing growth within the region and containing this growth within existing urban areas. It also outlines a requirement for the efficient delivery of infrastructure and services to support growth in the region, as well as a need to protect the quality of the environment. The regional overview and strategic direction contained in the RPS acknowledges that urban development can threaten environmental quality and includes a number of strategic objectives and policies seeking to address this issue. Policy 2.6.1.2(vi) states that urban development shall maintain and enhance amenity values within the existing urban area, and policy 2.6.1.2(vii), that development shall avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. Plan Change 6 to the RPS, based on the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004, further reinforces the focus on managing growth by providing for it within existing urban areas and seeking to achieve better integration of land use and transport planning. We find that the plan change is consistent with the RPS because it enables the provision of a community facility in a manner which avoids and/or mitigates adverse effects on the surrounding environment, and is located within the metropolitan urban limits.

21

The development of the site may require regional council consents in relation to the regional plans relating to air, land and water and to sediment control. Future applications would be assessed against those Plans. We did not receive any evidence to suggest that such consents would not be able to be obtained. 11.21.4 The District Plan

The Section 74 RMA matters to be considered by a territorial authority when changing its district plan do not specifically require regard to the given to the District Plan. However, we would expect any proposed plan change to be reasonably consistent with the provisions included in an operative district plan inasmuch as it did not conflict with other provisions. We note that the District Plan has objectives that seek to: protect the districts resources from significant adverse effects of activities and development; protect and enhance residential amenities; encourage the wide use and provision of education, health, recreation and community resources and facilities.

We find that the plan change adequately manages adverse effects and it specifically provides for community resources. The plan change is also structured to fit with the existing provisions of the District Plan without significantly changing the planning approach of the District Plan, as indicated by the objectives and policies and rule provisions. Section 10.5.1.1 of the District Plan sets out the matters that the Council shall consider when evaluating a request to rezone land to Special Purpose 1 or 2: Consider the Concept Plan against the objectives and policies for the zone; Whether the location is suitable; Whether the site is suitable; and Whether the proposed development is suitable.

We find that the plan change is consistent with those matters in the District Plan. consideration of the plan change is that it is entirely consistent with the District Plan.

Our

It is appropriate at this point to address the proposed amendments to the existing District Plan provisions for the Special Purpose 2 zone. These were discussed in the evidence of Iain McManus8 for the applicant and Robert Demler,9 for the Friends of Monte Inc. We accept the proposed amendments to add an objective and three policies as part of the plan change. These are supported by the application and details provided in support of it. It is also sought through
8 9

Evidence of Iain McManus, paras 28 to 30. Evidence of Robert Demler, para13.

22

the plan change to make minor consequential amendments to the zone statement, zone strategy, expected outcomes, rules and assessment criteria. These proposals are shown in the application details.10 We agree with Mr Demler that some are more than minor or consequential and are not appropriately made as part of this plan change because they go beyond the ambit of the plan change. 11.21.5 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA)

This is relevant because the stormwater from the site drains via the Oakley Creek to the Waitemata Harbour and hence to the Hauraki Gulf. There is potential for adverse effects on ecology, scouring flooding and contamination of the creek from the development provided for by the plan change which could potentially impact on the Gulf. We have dealt with those issues above. We find that the plan change is consistent with the HGMPA, particularly given the measures to be included as part of the plan change provisions and there will also be future consideration as part of the applications to the Council for regional consents. 11.21.6 Section 31 RMA

The Section 31 RMA functions include requiring the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land. The range of actual or potential effects arising from the plan change has been addressed in the plan change documentation and in the Section 42A report. We are satisfied that all actual and potential adverse effects associated with the plan change have been taken into account. 11.21.7 Section 32 RMA

The plan change documentation includes a comprehensive Section 32 evaluation of alternatives, costs and benefits related to the plan change. The evaluation concludes that the plan change is the most appropriate approach.11 Section 32(2)(a) requires that a local authority must undertake a further evaluation under Section 32 prior to making a decision on a private plan change request. This evaluation is included in the Section 42A report where the reporting planner has considered relevant case law, that being Eldamos Investments Ltd v Gisborne District Council 22/5/05 ENC Wellington W047/2005 and Long Bay-Okura Great Park Soc Inc v North Shore CC EnvC A078/08.12 We accept the analysis provided with the application and the further analysis provided by Deborah Rowe in the Section 42A report In particular (subject to the modifications that we have described above) we agree with Ms Rowes conclusion that:

10 11

Assessment of Effects on the Environment and Section 32 Analysis by Civitas, July 2010, appendix 3. Ibid, section 7.4. 12 Section 42A report, section 8.3.

23

the plan change has been designed to accord with and assist the territorial authority to carry out its functions so as to achieve the purpose of the RMA; that the proposed objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA: that the proposed policies are the most appropriate way to achieve the objective rather than maintaining the status quo; that the proposed rules are the most appropriate way to achieve the objective; that there is sufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules and other methods proposed, and that this is not a situation where significant consideration needs to be given to the risk of acting or not acting; and that the proposed rules will assist the Council to carry out its function of control of actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land.

We find that the Section 32 evaluations satisfy this section of the RMA. 11.21.8 Purpose and Principles Part 2 RMA

The proposed rezoning of the site involves the natural and physical resources of the land and existing buildings which the applicant seeks to use for both educational and religious purposes. This is consistent with the sustainable management purpose of the RMA in enabling people and the community to provide for their social wellbeing while sustaining the potential of those resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable growth needs of future generations for both the school and parish, while successfully integrating two compatible uses. We have found that the plan change will avoid and/or sufficiently mitigate any adverse effects of the proposal on the environment and in this respect highlight the modifications we have made to the Concept Plan, many of which reflect the concerns raised by submitters. There are no matters of national importance that are directly relevant to the plan change. In terms of Section 7 RMA considerations, the use of the site for the co-location of the school and its related parish activities is an efficient use and development of the site. The proposal will see some positive effects on the amenity values and the quality of the environment along with potential adverse effects which we have considered above. On balance we find that the plan change will contribute positively to the amenity values and quality of the environment. There were no issues relating to Maori that were brought to our attention and we were advised that the relevant Iwi had been included in the notification of the plan change. We accordingly find that there are no associated matters in relation to Sections 6, 7 or 8 of the RMA that we need to take into account. We find, in all the circumstances, that the plan change is consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA.

12.0

DECISIONS

24

That pursuant to Clauses 29 and 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, a) Proposed Plan Change 274 to the Auckland to the Auckland City Council District Plan 1999: Isthmus Section is APPROVED with modifications; b) The submissions that support the proposed plan change are ACCEPTED in accordance with a) above to the extent that modifications have been made to the proposed plan change; c) The submissions that oppose the proposed plan change are REJECTED in accordance with a) above although it should be noted that modifications have been made to the proposed plan change; d) The further submissions are ACCEPTED OR REJECTED in line with the above decisions on the primary submissions; all for the reasons set out above in this decisions report.

13.0

PLAN AMENDMENTS

The Auckland City Operative District Plan Isthmus Section is therefore amended as Proposed Plan Modification 274 was notified with the plan change and modifications shown on the attachments to this decisions report.

Alan Watson, Chair of the Hearings Panel, on behalf of Karyn Sinclair, Harry Bhana and Alan Watson. 6 July 2011

Attachments: A. Plan change 274 as provided by the applicant at the end of the hearing, incorporating modifications by the applicant in response to submitters concerns. B. Plan change 274 as approved with the modifications from the version presented by the applicant at the end of the hearing shown in tracked form. C. Plan change 274 as modified and approved (untracked). D. The Concept Plan diagram. E. The Indicative Development Plan.

25