Pre-Application Consenting Memo Pre-Application No. PRR00026685

Date of request 7/12/2017

Customer Brown & Company Planning Group – Cathy Wallace

Contact details Phone 034092258

Email cathy@brownandcompany.co.nz

Site address 42 Ponsonby Road Ponsonby 1011

Proposal Redevelopment of 42-48 Ponsonby Road to provide mixed use building (retail and commercial uses) with basement parking

Plans and information Plans prepared by Pattersons, dated 30-Nov-17

Resource Management Documents Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

Zoning H10. Business – Town Centre Zone

Overlays D18. Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business

Controls Height Variation Control – Ponsonby 13m Building Frontage: Key Retail Frontage Macroinvertebrate Community Index – Urban

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Locality Maps: The subject sites - 42 & 44-48 Ponsonby Road, outlined in yellow

Subject site view from Ponsonby Road

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Subject site view from Crummer Road

Property Information

Legal Description Lot 13 SEC 1 DP 242

Certificate of Title (If not provided)

This has not been viewed, so there may be easements, building line restrictions and other restrictions that need to be taken into account in preparing any development proposal. If the title is ‘limited as to parcels’, you may need to get this surveyed, particularly where some of the controls, are reliant on accuracy being insured.

Relevant Consenting History

42 Ponsonby Road:

• R/LPC/2013/4953 and R/LPC/2000/6500008, on-licence Liqour Planning Certificates

44-48 Ponsonby Road:

• R/LUC/2000/5702273: Alterations & additions to the building • R/LUC/2005/5989: development of new tavern within 30m of

residential zoned land, loading bay, alterations to building • R/LUC/2000/5704194: Erect free-standing sign, • R/LUC/1987/275: Increase restaurant floor area • R/LPC/2009/939: on-licence Liqour Planning Certificates

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Site constraints Type Y N Site constraints Type Y N

(Potential) Contaminated Land ☐ ☒ Coastal Erosion ☐ ☒

Land Instability ☐ ☒ Coastal Storm Inundation ☐ ☒

Floodplain ☐ ☒ Coastal Storm Inundation (plus 1m sea level rise)

☐ ☒

Overland flow paths (ephemeral/intermittent/permanent stream)

☒ ☐ Cultural Heritage Inventory ☐ ☒

Flood Sensitive ☐ ☒ Combined Network ☐ ☒

Arterial Roads ☒ ☐ Building Frontage Control ☒ ☐

Vehicle Access Restriction Control ☒ ☐ Geology (rock breaking) ☐ ☒

Meeting Record Meeting Record

Date and Time 18/01/2018 at 11am

Council Officers Janelle Smith – Senior Planner and meeting lead Priyanka Misra – Built Heritage Specialist Yu-Ning Liu – Urban Design Specialist Elizabeth Au – Urban Design Specialist Howard Read – Key Account Manager Margot Thomson – Planner and Minute Taker

Customer Andrew Mitchell – Pattersons Architects Marco Creemers – Samson Corporation Ltd (Applicant) Tom Dobinson – Pattersons Architects Darryl Fing – RCP Tricia Love – Tricia Love Consultants Ltd Adam Wild – Archifact Architecture and Conservation Jeff Brown – Brown and Company Planning Group

Additional Information provided at meeting

Supplementary or revised pages – pre application submission – 18 January 2018

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Outcome of Planning Provisions

General The Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘Operative in part’ (AUP(OP)) on 15 November 2016. For the purposes of this pre-application and any resource consent application that may be lodged, the AUP(OP) is the primary planning document that sets out the relevant zoning/overlays applying to the site, and the objectives and policies, rules and assessment criteria guiding development in this location

Outcome of planning provisions

H10. Business – Town Centre Zone The Business – Town Centre Zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services, providing a focus for commercial activities and growth. Most centres are identified for growth and intensification. Expansion of these centres may be appropriate depending on strategic and local environmental considerations. There is a range of possible building heights depending on the context. Provisions typically enable buildings of between four and eight storeys, although there may be special circumstances where other building heights are appropriate. The height opportunities within the centres will facilitate increased intensification, including office and residential activities at upper floors. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage Control or General Commercial Frontage Control provisions. Key retail streets are a focus for pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. D18. Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business The Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential and Business seeks to retain and manage the special character values of specific residential and business areas identified as having collective and cohesive values, importance, relevance and interest to the communities within the locality and wider Auckland region. Each special character area, other than Howick, is supported by a special character area statement identifying the key special character values of the area. Assessment of proposals for development and modifications to

Version 3.0 – June 2017

buildings within special character areas will be considered against the relevant policies and the special character area statements and the special character values that are identified in those statements. These values set out and identify the overall notable or distinctive aesthetic, physical and visual qualities, built form, architectural values, urban structure, and vegetation and landscape characteristics.

Relevant matters discussed Built Heritage The following comments were provided by Priyanka Misra during the

meeting:

• The demolition of the existing Character Supporting building: o not opposed to the demolition of this building as long as

may there is support of evidence that the existing building is highly altered.

o please refer to the matters of discretion and go through those for assessing the effects of the demolition.

• The demolition of the Character Defining building – the complete demolition of the lean-to is not supported and a strong case would need to be put forward for this to be considered as appropriate in this case. Being a corner site the rear is highly visible from Crummer Road and is an integral part of the streetscape. It is recommended to keep the entire building intact and move the laneway further south. There may be opportunities to create new openings in the rear façade to create connections to the proposed building and the proposed laneway. Alternative suggestions for consideration are:

o Retain a clear chunk of the lean-to that you can see from Crummer Road would be ideal

o The lean-to could work as a ‘tunnel’ type entrance from Crummer Road

o Preference would be for a 3D retention of the lean-to rather than the 2D wall with the cookie cutter entrance that is proposed.

• The verandah/awning addition – concerns as to there being a loss of the existing building fabric if the façade is removed and the verandah/awning added. The concern is around the interface of the verandah/awning with the façade. Alternative suggestions to this portion of the proposal are:

Version 3.0 – June 2017

o Make the verandah/awning separate to the building and keep the three townhouses clearly as separate building, so that it does not intrude on the façade of the existing building.

o Describe how the veranda will be designed in order to tie in with the building so that the heritage aspects of the building frontage are not lost.

• The proposed punching of an opening in the back wall of the building:

o no concerns with this because it is an internal wall.

• The new building on the Ponsonby Road elevation: o happy with the proposal overall as it breaks up the mass

and works well with the existing site and surrounding environment.

o Happy with the setback that is afforded from Ponsonby Road.

o Please consider how the blankness of the west facing wall facing the Crummer Road elevation will be mitigated. It was suggested that windows or other openings could be added in order to address the blank wall and would create some relief.

• The new buildings on the Crummer Road elevation: o would like this to have a larger setback from the road as it

currently does not look to relate to the surrounding buildings and environment across the road in terms of bulk and scale.

• Copper and bronze are not traditional in terms of built heritage materiality and it is suggested that other finishes that are not too reflective are considered.

o Please consider the use of steal as this is not reflective and is acceptable in terms of materials used in these heritage overlay sites.

o Clarify all materials that are to be utilised in the proposal in order for through assessment to be made.

• The entire proposal must give consideration to and be sympathetic in the context of the scheduled historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. (the Unitarian church, the Newton police station and Allendale).

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Urban Design The following comments were provided by Yu-Ning Liu during the

meeting: It is considered that the proposed design has a number of positive outcomes from urban design perspective. However, would like to use the opportunity of AUDP to further discussing/refining the following,

• The formal concept- representation of topiary hedge – whether such concept and its subsequent use in colour and material is an appropriate response to the character and in creating a positive contribution to visual amenity of the area

• Bulk, Scale and Massing – Urban design considers the top-level set back and modulation (expressed as two distinguishable facades) approach of Ponsonby Street frontage to be quite a success and would advise the applicant to adopt similar response for Crummer Road elevation, which is currently lack of fine grain expression/modulation

• Finesses of Secondary Elements- alignment/proportion/detail

design of windows/door/entrances/canopy – whether the existing design has responded truthfully to the fine-grain details of character building on site and the character of the immediate surrounds

• Laneway Functionality and Design- depends on the nature of the

laneway (ie, public or semi-public)- whether the existing layout achieves good legibility and functional requirement of access and dining/retail/commercial use.

Key Retail Frontages / Traffic The subject site is located within a key retail frontage. This seeks to

maximise street activation, building continuity along the frontage, pedestrian amenity and safety and visual quality. The proposal seeks by use either the existing and /or proposed crossing along Crummer Road. Consider adverse effects, and how this encroaches onto the pedestrian environment, including building continuity.

By being placed in the Special Character Overlay, there are no minimum or maximum parking requirements but in light of above, a traffic assessment (including how it impacts on pedestrian safety) is

Version 3.0 – June 2017

encouraged and to confirm or otherwise (with appropriate assessment) that standards have been met.

Other Planning Matters

The following comments were provided by Janelle Smith during the meeting:

• Regarding the proposed additional height of the back building:

o Not opposed to this as it is considered that the setback afforded from Ponosnby Road takes care of this. It is considered that the height can be accommodated on the site, especially when looking at the context of the surrounding sites – i.e. Vinegar lane.

o However, from Crummer Road, the context is different and the design needs to be mindful of the lower building heights further down Crummer Road and further setback from the street may also assist in ensuring that the additional height is acceptable.

• Regarding the blank façade of the southern elevation: o This needs some treatment to make it not so blank as the

sites adjacent are not currently developed to the extent of the zone allowances so there will be some time when that elevation will be blank and we have concerns on the effect on those persons. Suggestions are to break that elevation up with materials such as wooden screens, or similar.

• Regarding shading and shading of other sites: o The diagrams provided within the supplementary

documents at the meeting will be considered when the application is lodged – however I note that the detail provided is great.

• Regarding noise and vibration: o Acoustic report would be required in terms of the inter

tenancy noise levels to show that the relevant standards are met, or if not, assess those effects.

o An assessment for the construction noise and vibration is necessary for this scale of proposal as large developments don’t tend to comply with the permitted activity standards of construction noise and vibration.

Version 3.0 – June 2017

• Regarding the excavation of the basement car park:

o A demonstration of compliance with the standards for groundwater would be necessary.

• Regarding the Overland Flow Path: o Provide an assessment to show that any new access

won’t alter the flow path on the road.

• Stormwater and wastewater: o Refer to the SW Rules – E8.4.1.9 – diversion of SW.

Consider that materials used in the proposal may create run off – i.e. copper, so how is this contaminated SW to be treated.

• Show on plans that you are 30m away from residentially zoned land. If not, then bar/tavern activities (and associated parking) within 30 of residentially zoned land requires resource consent.

• Refer to the matters of discretion for new buildings within the Business Town Centre Zone to identify what matters need to be covered off.

Overall, the additional height sought (essentially one storey) could be supported if there isn’t further shading/visual dominance effect from immediate surrounds and wider context. From the information present so far, the council officers’ view (planning, heritage + urban design) is that the set back and modulation (finer grain) approach on Ponsonby Street frontage seems to be appropriate and it’s been advised to adopt similar response on the Crummer Road, which is currently lack of, ie a straight up bulk + massing.

Groundwater It will be the responsibility of the applicant to undertake a geotechnical investigation on the site and establish the depth of the groundwater table, including perched water, if any. This is required in order to determine whether the excavations required for the basement level(s) of the building will comply with the permitted activity standards for dewatering/diversion under E7.6.1.6 and E7.6.1.10 – if not, a resource consent to divert/dewater will be required under the AUP, and an effects assessment robustly demonstrating the potential for ground settlement effects on neighbouring buildings, structures and services is to be provided with the application.

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Flooding action The site has been identified as being potentially subject to flooding

(noting in this case the road) . Before any proposal is progressed, a full understanding of the flood hazard will need to be provided. This means that a suitably qualified professional will need to be engaged to assess and prepare a hazard risk assessment. The hazard risk assessment should describe the scale, frequency, risk and entry / exit points that the hazard poses to the site and surrounding environment. This information will heavily influence any proposal, and how the flooding effects are managed and incorporated into any proposal, e.g. the type of activity, placement and minimum floor level of buildings, site layout, earthworks, etc. The proposal should not exacerbate this hazard onto neighbouring properties or the wider surroundings. Please note the flowpath / floodplain shown on Council’s GIS Viewer is only indicative, and specific site surveys and modelling may be required.

Construction The construction stage of a proposal will generate effects that although short-term need to be appropriately managed in order to protect nearby amenities and the environment. Where appropriate, consideration will be given to the sensitivity of the environment, the proposed duration of works, and hours of construction activity. We will be looking for confirmation that the proposal complies with relevant standards. In terms of your proposal, I drawn your attention to the following that will be relevant during the construction period:

• construction noise

• vibration

• sediment and erosion controls

• construction traffic

• works within the dripline of vegetation

• groundwater

Other matters: It was discussed that for the “living Building”– the SW and WW will be all treated on site and utilised for the building, or for the surrounding community. The SW and WW is proposed to not be connected to the public utilities as much as possible Discussions with Senior Development Engineer, Scott Paton, were undertaken post meeting. From these discussions, it is recommended that that following matters be investigated further:

• Contact Steve Pearce (steve.pearce@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) – Manager Regulatory Compliance, to turn your mind to how such a

Version 3.0 – June 2017

development would be monitored.

• Contact Richard Campion (richard.campion@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) – Parks Planning Team Leader regarding re use of the ww/sw with the park – or who best to speak with/engage.

• Consider that the Building Act requirements may mean that

connection to the public reticulation is required for the fire alarms sprinkler system.

• In our experience, the use of copper results in leaching into SW

discharge at a level that breached the permited standards for SW discharge – receommended to look at alternatives.

• Any piping from the site would need to be ‘public’ rather than

‘private’ connections.

Preliminary view on outcome Overall, recognising where you are in the process, there are a number of aspects to carefully consider, and suggested changes/alternatives to the design, that are addressed above. The ‘Living Building’ model has not been commonly utilised in Auckland to date, as far as we are aware. The client has stated that the SW and WW will be treated on site and utilised for the building and for the surrounding community, and connected to the public utilities. We consider that it is important to get Council on board early on on the design process for such a proposal. Please refer to the Council Officers outlined above as your starting point. Further discussion is encouraged before any application is lodged, including additional pre application meering with the same specialists as this meeting, and meeting with the Urban Design Pannel to get their feedback.

Preliminary view on notification process A final determination on notification can only be made upon receipt of a formal application, site visit and review.

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Resource Consent Strategy Application Documentation

A good quality application starts with a good quality proposal, one that includes all relevant information and documentation required for us to process your consent smoothly. This will help to reduce confusion, delay and cost, as we do not accept applications which have missing information. We recommend you engage a professional (architect or consultant) to prepare your application, as the requirements are technical.

It is important that your application accurately identifies all of the reasons that your project will require resource consent. This may also include any Overlays, Precincts or other features such as flooding or instability, there will be other rules that apply to your site and you will need to demonstrate that you comply with these or state that you are applying for consent.

Your consent application must include an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). An AEE is a written statement identifying the effects of your proposed activity on the environment, and information on how you might negate or modify these effects.

Specialist Assessments

You may need to provide written specialist report(s) to support your application, depending on the scale and significance of your proposal. As described above, in this case the following is considered necessary:

• Acoustic & vibration (construction and operational) • Hazard Risk Assessment (OLFP) • Groundwater • Traffic • Urban Design • Heritage (Special Character) •

Important Note: The specialist assessments required above are advised based on the proposal provided for the pre-application meeting, should the nature and extent of proposal change, further specialist assessments may be required.

How to apply You can encouraged to apply online. This will save time and printing costs and you can track the progress of your application.

Version 3.0 – June 2017

Alternatively, you can post your application or come into one of our service centres.

Fees and deposit You must include the relevant lodgement deposit with your resource consent application, to cover initial application processing costs.

If the actual cost is less than the deposit amount, we will refund the difference.

If the actual cost exceeds the deposit amount, which happens in most cases, we will invoice you for the additional costs.

The deposit calculator gives an estimate of the deposit required.

General Information Development Contributions

Development contributions are the fees charged by the council for extra community and network infrastructure needed as a result of development projects. You will pay development contributions for residential and commercial development such as new houses, and subdivisions. The money collected from development contributions pays for the cost of public infrastructure that is needed to meet the additional demand from growth. This includes network infrastructure such as stormwater and transport, open space reserves and community facilities. To get an indication of the contribution please use the Development Contributions Estimator. Water supply and wastewater services are not included in the Development Contribution. This is covered in the infrastructure growth charge. This charge is administered by Watercare.

Important Information The purpose of a pre-application is to facilitate communication between applicants and the council so that the applicant can make informed decisions about applying for consents, permits or licences. The views expressed by council staff in or following a pre-application are those officers’ preliminary views, made in good faith, on the applicant’s proposal. The council makes no warranty, express or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,

Version 3.0 – June 2017

correctness, completeness or use of any information or views communicated as part of the pre-application process. The applicant is not required to amend their proposal to accommodate the views expressed by council staff. Further, it remains the applicant’s responsibility to get their own professional advice when making an application for consents, permits or licences, and to rely solely on that advice, in making any application for consents, permits or licences. To the extent permissible by law, the council expressly disclaims any liability to the applicant (under the theory of law including negligence) in relation to the pre-application process. The applicant also recognises that any information it provides to the council may be required to be disclosed under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (unless there is good reason to withhold the information under that act). All consent applications become public information once lodged with council. Please note that council compiles, on a weekly basis, summaries of lodged resource consent applications and distributes these summaries to all local boards and all mana whenua groups in the Auckland region. Local boards and mana whenua groups then have an opportunity to seek further details of applications and provide comment for council to take into account.

Prepared by: Name: Margot Thomson

Title: Planner

Signed:

Date: 13 February 2018

Reviewed by: Name: Matthew Wright

Title: Team Leader, Resource Consents

Signed:

Date: 21st February 2018

Version 3.0 – June 2017