You are on page 1of 17

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER

of the Resource Management


Act 1991
and
the
Local
Government
(Auckland
Transitional Provisions) Act
2010

AND
IN THE MATTER

of Topics 051-054 Centre


Zones, Business Park and
Industries Zones, Business
Activities and Business
Controls

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF TREVOR STEWART MACKIE


ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL
28 AUGUST 2015

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

My name is Trevor Stewart Mackie. I am an urban design planner engaged by the


Council to respond to submissions received on the notified PAUP and to provide
planning evidence in relation to the Centre Zones, Business Park and Industries

Zones, Business Activities and Business Controls, on building height and height-inrelation-to-boundary (HRB) development controls.

I have the qualifications and

experience set out in my evidence in chief dated 27 July 2015.

1.2

I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance
with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court
Practice Note.

1.3

I confirm my support for the mediation outcomes, in relation to height and HRB
controls in the business zones.

1.4

In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of
submitters on Topics 051-054 Centre Zones, Business Park and Industries Zones,
Business Activities and Business Controls.

This rebuttal statement addresses

various issues in that evidence.

2.

SCOPE

2.1

In my evidence in chief on building height and HRB development controls, in Topics


051-054 Centre Zones, Business Park and Industries Zones, Business Activities
and Business Controls, I grouped related submissions into sub-groups of height in
business zones, and height-in-relation-to-boundary in business zones. This rebuttal
statement will adopt a similar approach in relation to the evidence in chief from the
submitters.

2.2

The sub-groups that will be addressed in this evidence include the following:
a) Height in business zones:
i.

Unlimited height in a super metropolitan centre zone

ii.

Need for additional height for development feasibility

iii.

Heights for larger sites

iv.

Additional height in Mixed Use zones

v.

Height in Light and Heavy Industry zones

vi.

Infringement of occupiable height development control


2

b) HRB in business zones:

2.3

i.

HRB adjacent to Special Purpose School zone

ii.

HRB in Light and Heavy Industry zones

In preparing this rebuttal statement I have read the evidence of the following
witnesses, prepared on behalf of submitters:
a) Benjamin Ross, dated 11 August 2015, in relation to unlimited height in a Super
Metropolitan Centre zone
b) Stephen Hoskins, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of Destination Orewa Beach
and Pamber (Auckland) Ltd, in relation to the need for additional height for
development feasibility
c) Martin Cooper, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of St Marks Womens Health,
in relation to height and development feasibility
d) Michael Campbell, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of Masfen Group, in
relation to height incentives for larger sites
e) Luke Christensen, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of Generation Zero, NZIA
and UDF, in relation to height in centres and in the Mixed Use zone
f)

Christina van Bohemen, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of NZIA, UDF and
Generation Zero, in relation to height in the Mixed Use zone

g) Gerard Thompson, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of St Marks Womens


Health, Redwood Group, Cleethorpes Fifty Five Limited, Captain Springs 2015
Limited, Tana Turei and Faraday Properties Limited, in relation to height in the
Mixed Use zone
h) Matthew Riley, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of St Marks Womens Health,
Redwood Group, Cleethorpes Fifty Five Limited, Captain Springs 2015 Limited,
Tana Turei and Faraday Properties Limited, in relation to height in the Mixed
Use zone
i)

Anthony Gapes, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of Redwood Group and


Captain Springs 2015 Limited, in relation to height in the Mixed Use zone

j)

Peter Hall, dated 17 August 2015, on behalf of DB Breweries Ltd, in relation to


height and HRB controls in the Light Industry zone

k) Vijay Lala, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of Property Council, supporting the
height provisions for business zones
l)

Matthew Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of


Housing New Zealand Corporation, in relation to infringement of the occupiable
height development control

m) Jeffrey Brown, dated 17 August 2015, on behalf of Samson Corporation Limited


and Sterling Nominees Ltd, in relation to HRB in the Light and Heavy Industry
zones
n) Iain McManus, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of The Education Providers;
and Jennifer Carvill and Susannah Tait, dated 14 August 2015, on behalf of
DNZ Property Fund Limited and PSPIB Waiheke Incorporated, in relation to
HRB for business zones adjacent to the Special Purpose School zone.

3.

SUMMARY

3.1

Submitter Mr Benjamin Ross seeks an unlimited height in a Super Metropolitan


Centre zone for Albany and Manukau. I consider that the Metropolitan Centre height
controls are appropriate, and allow substantial building scale for certainty of
development potential. Additional height may be achieved as a restricted
discretionary activity, where effects can be managed.

3.2

Mr Stephen Hoskins, on behalf of Destination Orewa Beach and Pamber


(Auckland) Limited, considers that eight to nine storeys is the minimum building
height at which an apartment development becomes feasible. Without extending
into economic analysis, I simply note that development of apartment buildings is
occurring at a range of scales across Auckland. The study and analysis relied upon
by Mr Hoskins demonstrate the development feasibility of a ten storey building on
sites that have a plan development capacity and land value of three or four storeys.

3.3

Mr Michael Campbell, on behalf of Masfen Group, considers that larger sites should
have higher height controls, as that would incentivise site amalgamations for
comprehensive re-development, and they are more easily able to mitigate adverse
effects by greater building separation distances. In my opinion the larger sites can
use their size advantage, through the restricted discretionary activity resource
consent, to manage the effects of additional height. That is preferable to allocating
additional height to sites where the effects have not been assessed. The more
extensive Mixed Use and Centre zoned areas have Additional Zone Height Controls
enabling additional height.

3.4

Submitter Mr Anthony Gapes, and Mr Matthew Riley, Mr Gerard Thompson, and Mr


Martin Cooper, on behalf of St Marks Womens Health, Redwood Group, Cleethorpes
Fifty Five Limited, Captain Springs 2015 Limited, Tana Turei and Faraday Properties
4

Limited, consider the Mixed Use zone should allow six to eight storey buildings rather
than the four to five storey heights of the PAUP provisions. Their evidence relates to
development feasibility, planning for growth and intensification, and the management of
adverse effects of building height. Ms Christina van Bohemen and Mr Luke Christensen,
on behalf of New Zealand Institute of Architects, Urban Design Forum and Generation
Zero, also support six to eight storeys in the Mixed Use zone, and that effects of
building height would best be managed on a case-by-case basis through a design
review panel. I consider that the zone height controls in the Council marked-up version
are appropriate, and that further height would be able to occur subject to management
of effects as a restricted discretionary activity.

3.5

Mr Peter Hall, on behalf of DB Breweries Limited, seeks a height limit of 25m in the
Light Industry zone generally, and 35m for the DB Waitemata Brewery site in an
Additional Zone Height Control layer. He considers the additional height is
necessary for existing operations, for efficient use of land and buildings in industrial
areas, and that there are substantial opportunity costs of limiting the heights of
future developments. I consider that the PAUP 20m height control is generally
appropriate for industrial zones. The assessment criteria, for the restricted
discretionary activity to exceed that height, focus on proximity to sensitive zones
and operational requirements of industrial activities.

3.6

Mr Matthew Lindenberg and Ms Amelia Linzey, on behalf of Housing New Zealand


Corporation, seek clarification of occupiable height exceedances. I confirm that, as
a development control designed to allow useable building height and a roof form,
exceeding the occupiable height would be a development control infringement.

3.7

Mr Iain McManus, on behalf of The Education Providers, advises in his evidence


that agreement has been reached post-mediation on an appropriate HRB control for
commercial sites adjoining the Special Purpose School zone. That is confirmed in
the evidence of Ms Jennifer Carvill and Ms Susannah Tait, on behalf of DNZ
Property Fund Limited and PSPIB Waiheke Incorporated. I support the agreed
outcome, of a HRB control of 45 beginning 6m above the boundary.

3.8

Mr Jeffrey Brown, on behalf of Samson Corporation Limited and Sterling Nominees


Ltd, considers that the HRB control in Light and Heavy Industry zones should be 6m
+ 35. Mr Peter Hall, on behalf of DB Breweries Limited, considers the HRB control
for the Light Industry zone should be 3m + 45. Both consider the PAUP 8m + 18

to be onerous, and that there are other development controls that can mitigate bulk
dominance and other height effects. I consider that the HRB for Industry zones is a
permitted activity development control and, in conjunction with the height control,
yard and landscaping buffer controls, it is capable of managing adverse effects of
utilitarian industrial development.
3.9

In relation to the Height and HRB development controls for the business zones, the
only change I support to the marked-up version is the HRB for Centres, Mixed Use,
General Business and Business Park zones where adjacent to a Special Purpose
School zone or a Special Purpose Maori Purposes zone.

That HRB control

should be set at 45 and begin 6m above the boundary.

4.

HEIGHT IN BUSINESS ZONES


Unlimited height in a Super Metropolitan Centre zone

Evidence

4.1

Benjamin Ross, in his primary evidence, seeks the creation of a Super Metropolitan
Centre zone for Manukau and Albany, with unlimited height.

Analysis

4.2

The need or otherwise for an additional zone is addressed within the evidence of Mr
Bonis. In terms of an unlimited height control applying to Manukau, I note that the
Obstacle Limitation Surface control for the Auckland International Airport rises at a
1.2% gradient from the runway, passing through height contours of 85 to 95 metres
directly above Manukau Metropolitan Centre.

4.3

Parts of Albany Centre have no height limit applying in the operative legacy plan. As
it is still a largely greenfield area there is less sensitivity to taller buildings than in
locations already developed. That is likely to change as more development occurs
in Albany and amenity patterns of sun and view access develop. In my opinion the
proposed Metropolitan Centre zone height limit of 72.5m across most of Albany
Centre allows substantial building scale for certainty of development potential.

Response

4.4

Manukau and Albany may be able to accommodate taller buildings than the 72.5m
allowed by the height control, as may other Metropolitan Centres. The height
development control means the effects of the upper parts of those buildings can be
assessed through the restricted discretionary activity resource consent process.
The Obstacle Limitation Surface control in Manukau provides an additional overlay
height control and would limit any building in Manukau Metropolitan Centre to 85 to
95m.

Need for additional height for development feasibility


Evidence
4.5

On behalf of Destination Orewa Beach and Pamber (Auckland) Limited, Stephen


Hoskins provided primary evidence explaining economics of development feasibility. In
that evidence he demonstrates by a simple example that eight to nine storeys is the
minimum height at which apartment development becomes feasible. He also refers to
an earlier study of eight sites in Browns Bay and Orewa1 which similarly concluded that
development of eight or fewer storeys would not be economically feasible.

Analysis
4.6

Both the evidence of Mr Hoskins and the earlier study by Cranleigh use a current land
value for the test sites, where a three or four storey height control currently applies, so I
am not surprised that a 10 storey building would be more feasible. My experience with
development feasibility has been with design and activity/development controls
determining possible development options, rather than costs of development. I would be
going outside my expertise to comment further on economics of development feasibility,
except to say that apartment developments are currently occurring across Auckland at
all scales, including 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 storeys and more. Development companies such as
Fletcher Residential, Todd Properties and Ockham Developments are producing
apartment developments, and the Property Council evidence (of Vijay Lala) supports
the proposed business provisions.

Hibiscus Coast and Bays Town Centres Building Heights Economic Viability Assessment Cranleigh 2013 for Auckland
Council

Response

4.7

I consider that the height development controls for the business zones, including for
Orewa Town Centre, have been set at appropriate levels, to generally allow
buildings up to a threshold of acceptability, within their amenity and environmental
contexts. There is provision by way of restricted discretionary activity resource
consent to exceed the height controls where the effects can be managed, on a siteby-site basis.
Heights for larger sites
Evidence

4.8

Michael Campbell, in his primary evidence at section 6, sets out a general argument in
relation to the height controls applying to six large and two smaller properties controlled
by Masfen Group. He considers that larger sites provide an ideal opportunity for
comprehensive development, and that additional height would incentivise the
amalgamation of properties into larger sites. Mr Campbell considers that larger sites are
more suitable for larger buildings, as they can mitigate height effects by separation.
Potential notification and its uncertainty and business risk, for infringements of the
development controls, are also raised as reasons why additional height should not be a
notifiable resource consent.

Analysis

4.9

The individual sites controlled by Masfen Group, and referred to in Mr Campbells


evidence, are considered within the evidence of area planners (Ross Moffatt and
Hannah Thompson, Hamish Scott and Lee-Ann Lucas). Further assessment of
additional height for specific sites should, in my opinion, be the subject of a
resource consent application, in relation to a specific design proposal rather than a
bulk and location zoning provision.

4.10

Applying a higher height development control, to existing larger sites through the
Additional Zone Height Control layer, would not be an incentive for the further
amalgamation of sites. Any future amalgamation would require a plan change to
amend the Additional Zone Height Control layer. If applied automatically, as a
bonus to any sites of more than a given area, the effects of the additional height
would not be taken into account and may not be able to be managed through the
8

resource consent. These additional effects could include, for example, increased
bulk dominance where the site is on higher ground or has a long boundary facing a
lower intensity zone, and loss of community views where business zones are in
coastal areas on valley floors. In my opinion, the larger and amalgamated sites
have a natural advantage in the restricted discretionary activity resource consent
process. They have the area to provide mitigation of the direct effects of additional
height and bulk, and can meet the assessment criterion on contribution to growth
and intensification outcomes. Such advantages would also apply to newlyamalgamated sites. Notification issues are addressed in the rebuttal evidence of Mr
Wyatt. I agree that the normal notification tests are appropriate to ensure that
affected people have the opportunity to get involved.
4.11

I disagree with Mr Campbells statement that large sites are best suited to larger
buildings due to distance mitigating the worst effects of height, including overlooking,
dominance and shading. Location of the site itself, near centres, or away from
residential areas or those with heritage character, allows a small site to have taller
buildings, and much of the Additional Zone Height Control layer reflects that. Likewise
the design of buildings to not shade excessively, or overlook or intrude on privacy, or
dominate by bulkiness, is equally available to small sites as to larger sites. Large sites
do provide additional opportunities for internalising building bulk effects by separation.

Response

4.12

I do not consider the changes proposed on behalf of Masfen Group are appropriate
and I support the Council version as marked-up and attached to the rebuttal
evidence of Mr Wyatt.
Additional height in Mixed Use zones
Evidence

4.13

Evidence from Anthony Gapes (Redwood Group, Captain Springs 2015 Limited)
supports a six to eight storey height limit in the Mixed Use zone, on the grounds of
improved development feasibility for apartments, over the terrace housing that would
generally be more feasible with a four to five storey height limit.

4.14

Evidence from Matthew Riley and Gerard Thompson (on behalf of Redwood Group,
Captain Springs 2015 Limited, St Marks Womens Health, Cleethorpes Fifty Five

Limited, Tana Turei and Faraday Properties Limited) also supports a six to eight storey
height in the Mixed Use zone, from urban design and planning viewpoints. The height
variation would relate to proximity to residential areas, or centres with heritage
character where the existing built environment is typically of one or two storeys. Where
the Mixed Use zone is further away from such locations an eight storey height is
proposed. Mr Riley considers that six storeys achieves an appropriate balance between
providing for intensification in areas with access to good amenity and services while
managing visual dominance effects (paras 5.4 5.6 of his EIC). Mr Riley also considers
that the HRB control is effective in dealing with shading, overlooking and privacy
concerns from Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed Housing Urban zones
adjacent to six storey buildings (paras 5.7 5.11 of his EIC).

4.15

Martin Cooper (St Marks Womens Health), in his primary evidence, also considers
that a six storey height limit on his clients Mixed Use site in Remuera would
improve the development feasibility, which he considers marginal for an apartment
development and possibly marginal for a terrace house development. Part of the
site has a six storey height limit in the PAUP and the other part a four storey limit.
His evidence is considered here as it is relevant to the broader issue of Mixed Use
height control settings.

4.16

Christina van Bohemen, in her primary evidence on behalf of New Zealand Institute
of Architects, Urban Design Forum and Generation Zero, generally supports the
proposed increases in building height for business zones, as shown in the Council
marked-up version, but considers that the 18m limit for the Mixed Use zone is too
low in some areas and that this should be increased to allow buildings of six to eight
storeys (paras 5.4 5.8 of her EIC). Luke Christensen, also on behalf of New
Zealand Institute of Architects, Urban Design Forum and Generation Zero, goes
further in seeking increased height in the centre zones as well as the Mixed Use
zone, to allow for more growth and intensification. Ms van Bohemen considers that
appropriate incentives or controls could manage effects on adjacent residential
zones or historic heritage buildings or areas. Further in her evidence she states
that, as zoning is a blunt tool, increases in height would in many cases be best
considered on a case-by-case basis, managed through a design review panel
process.

10

Analysis

4.17

Buildings of one to three storeys in Single House, Mixed Housing Suburban or Mixed
Housing Urban zones will in some areas be adjacent to Mixed Use buildings, and a
height difference of more than two storeys will be noticeable. In some cases there will
be single storey dwellings adjacent to a five storey Mixed Use building (up to 18 metres
high). There is likely to be a period of significant visual disruption over Aucklands urban
landscape, as re-development will not occur all at once but will be spread over decades.
Finding and amalgamating suitable sites feasible for intensive re-development takes
time, and that will mean a dispersed pattern of development and some dramatic
building scale juxtapositions occurring over the life of the plan. The effects will be partly
managed by HRB, yard, upper building setbacks and landscaping development
controls, and building design, but there is also a threshold at which the building height
itself creates effects. Overall the Mixed Use zone is generally a transitional zone
between business zones (Centres, Business Park, General Business, Light and Heavy
Industry, and along some arterial roads, some of which will become more commercial
as Integrated Growth Corridors) and the residential zones, and that transition is
reflected in activity mix and building scale. As the transitional zone thickens up, or
where it is near the more intensive Metropolitan Centre and City Centre, the building
scale increases in the Additional Zone Height Control layer.

4.18

It is also highly probable that the overall intensified form of the centres, Mixed Use
areas and their residential surroundings will not become perceptible until a substantial
proportion of re-development has occurred. Some instances will indicate the future
pattern, if they are built to near the limits of the development controls. There is a
graduated height and intensity approach, in the centres hierarchy and from each centre
out through Mixed Use zone, Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone, Mixed
Housing Urban and the lower density residential zones. Larger and more intensive
mixed use development should, in my opinion, occur in and around the higher order
centres, and that is reflected in the Additional Zone Height Controls applying six to eight
storey development controls in those areas, and in some cases even higher to 32.5m.

4.19

The residential zones, and the Mixed Use, Local and Neighbourhood Centres, and
to a large extent the Town Centres, have existing built environments characterised
by predominantly one and two storey development. Taller buildings are currently
seen as exceptions. In my opinion there is considerable potential provided in the
Mixed Use zones at five storeys and above, with a few areas held lower where their
local contexts warrant it.
11

4.20

In terms of visual dominance, shading, overlooking and loss of privacy contributed


by taller buildings, I consider that the effects are able to be managed effectively at
the heights proposed in the Council marked-up version. Additional height, as a
restricted discretionary activity, can be assessed against its potential effects and the
intention of the controls being infringed. Relying on the HRB development control
alone would mean the potential for a building of 21m height on a flat site, where that
part is set back 18.5m from the boundary of an adjacent Single House or Mixed
Housing Suburban zone. That may in many cases be acceptable if the effects of
bulk dominance, shading, overlooking and privacy are managed directly, by the
building design and siting.

4.21

Mr Coopers site is in a Special Housing Area, which confines it to the rules of the
PAUP as notified, or the 8m height of the operative Residential 6a zone. That
means the four and six storey height limits apply, even though the proposed
amendments to the Mixed Use zone height limits would allow five and eight storeys
(18m and 27m respectively). I anticipate that increasing the base height control to
allow one or two additional storeys would affect the value of Mr Cooper's land,
which may also affect the development feasibility. I would be concerned if redevelopment of the site is not feasible, given there is only a single storey (ex-house
converted to health facilities) building on each of the two lots making up the site
currently. The issue appears to be between terrace houses and apartments, and
overall housing yield for Auckland housing supply, rather than whether the sites
could be re-developed in a substantially more intensive manner.

4.22

In relation to evidence of Christina van Bohemen, I consider that the Mixed Use zone
height controls, as modified by the Additional Zone Height Control layer, generally set
appropriate building controls across their varying locations and contexts. I agree that
building height, at least above those levels, can best be considered on a case-by-case
basis. However, in my opinion that should be through the restricted discretionary activity
resource consent process, rather than by design review panel.

Response

4.23

I consider that the height development controls for the Mixed Use zone are set at
appropriate levels. They provide a minimum level of certainty of development
opportunities, with further height subject to management of effects as a restricted

12

discretionary activity. Further examination of area-specific building heights may


occur through the Additional Zone Height Controls.
Height in Light Industry zone
Evidence

4.24

Peter Hall, in his primary evidence on behalf of DB Breweries Limited, seeks a height
limit of 25m in the Light Industry zone generally, and a 35m limit in an Additional Zone
Height Control layer (Topic 078) for the DB Waitemata Brewery site. Principal concerns
are the efficient use of land and buildings in business areas and a relative scarcity of
the industrial land resource (paras 8.3 8.6). Mr Hall considers there are significant
opportunity costs of limiting the heights of future development to well below that which
they are at present.

Analysis
4.25

The evidence-in-chief of Mr Sadlier addressed the site-specific height aspect of the DB


Breweries Ltd primary submission. The site does have buildings and plant taller than
20m. The height control is 20m height but additional height may be consented as a
restricted discretionary activity, with the assessment criteria including proximity to
sensitive zones, and operational requirements of industrial activities. The DB Waitemata
Brewery has both operational requirements for taller structures and various sensitive
zones surrounding the site, including residential, a school and public open space. The
height control should be read in conjunction with the other development controls,
including HRB, yards and buffer landscaping. I note that there is currently no application
of the Additional Zone Height Control layer to any Light or Heavy Industry zoned land
within the PAUP.

Response

4.26

In my opinion, the zone-wide height development control for the Light Industry zone
should be 20 metres.
Infringement of occupiable height development control
Evidence

4.27

In the primary evidence of Matthew Lindenberg and Amelia Linzey, on behalf of


Housing New Zealand Corporation, clarification is sought of the occupiable height
13

development control, in relation to a development control infringement (para 35). Mr


Lindenberg and Ms Linzey consider that an occupiable building height of 16.1m in an
18m Mixed Use zone should not trigger a development control infringement.

Analysis

4.28

In the notified PAUP the height development control is expressed as X metres and
Y storeys, and supported by a floor-to-floor height control. It was intended to
ensure apartment buildings with generous internal heights and a roof form would
not be replaced by the maximum number of minimum height apartment levels and a
uniform flat roof. Consideration of alternative height techniques prior to and through
mediation has resulted in the storey number control being deleted, and a floor-tofloor height control only applying to buildings with a Key Retail Frontage or General
Commercial Frontage. The dimensional height control has been amended to
comprise an occupiable height and a height for roof form. Exceeding the
occupiable height would be a development control infringement, just as minor
exceedances of other development controls are restricted discretionary activities.
The resource consent assessment would determine whether the effects of the
infringement are significant and whether they have been appropriately managed.

4.29

In my opinion, a total building height of 18m in the Mixed Use zone, comprising 16m
occupiable height and 2m height for roof form, is designed for a four or five storey
building but could accommodate a six storey building if ceiling heights and floor
thicknesses are minimised. I do not consider that to be a good urban design or
residential amenity outcome, but I would not expect the market to deliver minimum
ceiling height apartments except for the most affordable and social housing sectors.
Response

4.30

I consider that exceeding the occupiable height is a development control


infringement, and should be a restricted discretionary activity.

5.

HEIGHT-IN-RELATION-TO-BOUNDARY (HRB) IN BUSINESS ZONES


HRB adjacent to Special Purpose School zone
Evidence
14

5.1

Iain McManus, on behalf of The Education Providers (a group of independent and


integrated schools) provided evidence on the appropriate HRB development control
for business Centre and Mixed Use zones adjacent to Special Purpose School
zones. At mediation this was an outstanding item, with DNZ Property Fund Ltd and
AMP Capital Property Ltd not agreeing to the proposed HRB control. Mr McManus
has reached agreement with those parties since mediation, and proposes that the
HRB should be a plane at 45 and apply from 6m above the ground at the
boundary. Joint evidence from Jennifer Carvill and Susannah Tait, on behalf of DNZ
Property Fund Limited and PSPIB Waiheke Incorporated, has been provided
confirming that setting is acceptable.

Analysis

5.2

The matter that was outstanding at mediation has been negotiated between the
parties to a mutually acceptable rule setting. I accept the agreement and support
the new setting as satisfactory to the commercial property and education providers.
Response

5.3

The proposed HRB development control of 6m + 45, for the commercial zones
adjoining a Special Purpose - School zone is supported. It is recorded within the
rebuttal marked-up version, attached to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wyatt.

HRB in Light and Heavy Industry zones


Evidence
5.4

Jeffrey Brown, on behalf of Samson Corporation Limited and Sterling Nominees Ltd, in
his primary evidence considers that the HRB control in Light and Heavy Industry zones
should be a 35 plane measured from 6m above the boundary, rather than the PAUP
control of 18 measured at 8m above the boundary with Residential, Public Open
Space, Special Purpose School and Special Purpose Maori Purposes zones. Peter
Hall, on behalf of DB Breweries Ltd, considers the HRB control for the Light Industry
zone should be 45 measured 3m above the boundary (section 9).

5.5

Mr Brown considers that an alternative control would allow a better balance


between enabling development in the industrial zones and avoiding or mitigating
15

adverse effects of building bulk or dominance on the adjoining sensitive zones. It


would then be a more efficient use of a finite resource. Mr Hall considers that the
proposed HRB fails to give effect to the enabling purpose of the Light Industrial
zone for industrial growth and development, and should be aligned with the HRB
control applying to Centres, Mixed Use, General Business and Business Park
zones.
Analysis
5.6

Building development complying with the Industry zone HRB development controls is a
permitted activity. In the higher amenity centres and other business zones new
development requires a restricted discretionary activity resource consent and the design
of the building and its effects near the boundary would be considered. At a distance of
5m, from a boundary adjoining a residential or public open space zoned site, an
industrial building or structure is permitted at 9.6m height (three storey equivalent),
rising to the full 20m zone height when 37m from the boundary. The HRB control is
assisted by the overall height control and the yard and landscaping requirements. An
industrial building would have a similar bulk dominance effect as a two to three storey
building at the boundary, three to four storey building 10m away, four storey building at
20m away (width of a house site) and five to six storey building at the height limit of 20m
when 37m or further from the boundary.

5.7

I consider that there is an effects basis to the development controls on development in


the Industry zones, which manage the mitigation of bulk dominance, and utilitarian
visual amenity. Some industrial sites are more vulnerable to the development controls, if
they have significant boundary exposure to sensitive adjacent zones, and some are
made more vulnerable by the extension of new Residential zones towards their
boundaries.

Response

5.8

I consider that the Council marked-up version of the HRB controls for Light and
Heavy Industry zones is appropriate and I support that control setting.

6.

CONCLUSION

6.1

In relation to the Height and HRB development controls for the business zones, the
only change I support to the marked-up version is the HRB for Centres, Mixed Use,
16

General Business and Business Park zones where adjacent to a Special Purpose
School zone or a Special Purpose Maori Purposes zone (to 6m + 45).

Trevor Stewart Mackie


28 August 2015

17