HEARING AGENDA 22 KIPLING AVENUE, EPSOM KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED

Transcription

1 I hereby give notice that a hearing by commissioners will be held on: Date: Tuesday 28 March 2017 Time: 9.30am Meeting Room: Council Chamber Venue: Ground Floor, Auckland Town Hall, Queen Street, Auckland HEARING AGENDA 22 KIPLING AVENUE, EPSOM KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED COMMISSIONERS Chairperson Commissioners Cherie Lane Philip Brown Sanjana France HEARINGS ADVISOR Telephone: or sanjana.france@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a decision of Council. Should commissioners require further information relating to any reports, please contact the hearings advisor.

2 WHAT HAPPENS AT A HEARING At the start of the hearing, the Chairperson will introduce the commissioners and council staff and will briefly outline the procedure. The Chairperson may then call upon the parties present to introduce themselves to the panel. The Chairperson is addressed as Mr Chairman or Madam Chair. Any party intending to give written or spoken evidence in Māori should advise the hearings advisor at least five working days before the hearing so that a qualified interpreter can be provided. Catering is not provided at the hearing. Scheduling submitters to be heard A timetable will be prepared approximately one week before the hearing for all submitters who have returned their hearing attendance form. Please note that during the course of the hearing changing circumstances may mean the proposed timetable is delayed or brought forward. Submitters wishing to be heard are requested to ensure they are available to attend the hearing and present their evidence when required. The hearings advisor will advise submitters of any changes to the timetable at the earliest possible opportunity. The Hearing Procedure The usual hearing procedure is: The applicant will be called upon to present his/her case. The applicant may be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses in support of the application. After the applicant has presented his/her case, members of the hearing panel may ask questions to clarify the information presented. Submitters (for and against the application) are then called upon to speak. Submitters may also be represented by legal counsel or consultants and may call witnesses on their behalf. The hearing panel may then question each speaker. The council officer s report will identify any submissions received outside of the submission period. At the hearing, late submitters may be asked to address the panel on why their submission should be accepted. Late submitters can speak only if the hearing panel accepts the late submission. Should you wish to present written information (evidence) in support of your application or your submission please ensure you provide the number of copies indicated in the notification letter. Only members of the hearing panel can ask questions about submissions or evidence. Attendees may suggest questions for the panel to ask but it does not have to ask them. No cross-examination - either by the applicant or by those who have lodged submissions is permitted at the hearing. After the applicant and submitters have presented their cases, the chairperson may call upon council officers to comment on any matters of fact or clarification. When those who have lodged submissions and wish to be heard have completed their presentations, the applicant or his/her representative has the right to summarise the application and reply to matters raised by submitters. Hearing panel members may further question the applicant at this stage. The chairperson then generally closes the hearing and the applicant, submitters and their representatives leave the room. The hearing panel will then deliberate in committee and make its decision. Decisions are usually available within 15 working days of the hearing.

3 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Date: Tuesday 28 March 2017 A LIMITED NOTIFIED DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION BY KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. Reporting officer s report 5-38 Attachment 1 Application documents and drawings Attachment 2 Auckland Council specialist reviews Attachment 3 Notification determination report Attachment 4 Copies of submissions received Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Changes and/ or extra information received after the close of submissions Suggested draft conditions of consent (should the independent hearing commissioners decide to grant resource consent) Reporting Officer: Bronté Linkhorn Reporting on an application to construct and operate a healthcare facility at 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom. The reporting officer is recommending, subject to contrary or additional information being received at the hearing, that the application be REFUSED. APPLICANT: KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED SUBMITTERS: Page 459 Zhongwei Qiao 19A Domett Avenue Epsom Page 461 Wataru Okada and 20B Kipling Avenue Epsom Lu Wei Hii Page 476 The Owners of PO Box 4492 Shortland Street Endoscopy Auckland and Laparoscopy Auckland Page 485 David Merrilees 148 Gillies Avenue Epsom Page 463 Ryan McMullen 4/146 Gillies Avenue Epsom Page 469 Saad Al-Dewani 32 Lansell Drive East Tamaki Heights LATE SUBMITTERS: Page 474 Andrew C R Bowker PO Box Mt Eden Page 3

4 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Date: Tuesday 28 March Albert Street Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Ph

5 Report on notified application for resource consent(s) under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Discretionary activity To: From: Independent Hearing Commissioners Bronté Linkhorn, Reporting Planner Hearing date: 28 th March 2017 Note: This is not the decision on the application. This report sets out the advice and recommendation of the reporting planner. This report has yet to be considered by the independent hearing commissioners delegated by Auckland Council to decide this resource consent application. The decision will be made by the independent hearing commissioners only after they have considered the application and heard from the applicant, submitters and council officers. 1. Application description Application and property details Application number(s): R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Applicant's name: Site address: Kipling House Limited John Dunn 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Legal description: Lot 1 DP AUP (OP) zoning and limitations: Residential Mixed Housing Suburban Zone Lodgement date: 17/11/2016 Notification date: 21/11/2016 Submission period ended: 19/12/2016 Quality-Sensitive Aquifer Management Areas Overlay Auckland Isthmus Volcanic Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas Overlay W26, Mount Wellington, Viewshafts Macroinvertebrate Community Index - Urban Number of submissions received: 2 in support (1 late) 1 neutral 4 in opposition Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 5

6 Locality Plan Application documents The list of application documents and drawings is set out in attachment 1 of this report. Adequacy of information The information submitted by the applicant is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the consideration of the following matters on an informed basis: The nature and scope of the proposed activity that the applicant is seeking resource consent(s) for. The extent and scale of the actual and potential effects on the environment. Those persons and / or customary rights holders who may be adversely affected. The requirements of the relevant legislation. A request for further information under s92 of the RMA was made on 24/01/2017 after the close of submissions and to address concerns raised in the submissions. The applicant provided all of the information requested on 7/02/2017 and 10/02/2017. Report and assessment methodology The application is appropriately detailed and comprehensive, and includes a number of expert assessments. Accordingly, no undue repetition of descriptions or assessments from the application is made in this report. Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 6

7 I have made a separate and independent assessment of the proposal, with the review of technical aspects by independent experts engaged by the council, as needed. Where there is agreement on any descriptions or assessments in the application material, this is identified in this report. Where professional opinions differ, or extra assessment and / or consideration is needed for any reason, the relevant points of difference of approach, assessment, or conclusions are detailed. Also the implications for any professional difference in findings in the overall recommendation is provided. The assessment in this report also relies on reviews and advice from the following specialists: Bin Qui, Environmental Health Specialist Noise, Auckland Council Pilar Garcia Domingo, Specialist Urban Designer, Auckland Design Office Sarah Cameron, Architect, Opus International Consultants Ltd Brigitte Kisseleff, Consultant Development Engineer, Thomas Civil and Environment Consultants Ltd Shruti Gadgil and Ross Rutherford, Transportation Engineer, Abley Transportation Consultants These assessments are included in attachment 2 of this report. This report is prepared by: Bronté Linkhorn, Intermediate Planner Signed: Date: 17/02/2017 Reviewed and approved for release by: Kerstin Strauss, Team Leader, Resource Consents Signed: Date: 17 February 2017 Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 2 7

8 2. Executive summary Kipling House Limited John Dunn has applied to the council for resource consent to construct and operative a healthcare facility which specialises in screening for and the prevention of bowel cancer. The site is zoned Mixed Housing Suburban Zone under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and resource consent for land use matters are required for: The scale of the earthworks The exceedance of construction noise standards The removal of street trees The design of parking and access including a shortfall of vehicle parking, bicycle parking and disabled parking spaces, a shortfall of vertical clearance height, shortfall of manoeuvring area and exceedance of the number of vehicle crossings and separation between crossings. A healthcare facility exceeding 200m 2 GFA in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone The exceedance of the maximum height, height in relation to boundary, yard, impervious coverage, building coverage and landscaped area standards as they apply in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. The signage is considered as part of the land use consent and requires consent as it infringes the yard and height in relation to boundary standards. The application was limited notified on 21 st November submissions were received, 2 in support, 1 neutral and 4 in opposition. One of the submissions in support was received late. Overall, following an assessment and review of the application, I consider the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant statutory provisions for the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. Whilst a healthcare activity may be appropriate in this location, in this case, due to the scale and intensity of the proposed development the proposal is not compatible with the existing and planned suburban built character of the residential neighbourhood, thus having unacceptable adverse effects on the residential amenity of the environment, and in particular neighbouring properties. Therefore, subject to new or contrary evidence presented at the hearing, it is recommended that the application for land use resource consent be refused. 3. The proposal, site and locality description Proposal It is proposed to construct and operate a healthcare facility which specialises in screening for and prevention of bowel cancer through colonoscopy and polyp removal. There will be 26 car parking spaces provided onsite in a semi-basement car park, some with car stackers. The construction will require rock breaking and 1596m 3 of earthworks across 1200m 2 of the site. The healthcare facility will have a gross floor area of 947m 2. The facility will operate Monday to Friday 7.30am to 6.30pm, and Saturday 8.00am to 12.00pm. There will be a total maximum of 18 staff on site at any one time. Patient visits are expected to range from 30 minutes to three hours, with no overnight stays and no emergency facilities provided. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 3 8

9 Site, locality, catchment and environs description The subject site is located on the southern side of Kipling Avenue near the intersection with Gillies Avenue. The surrounding environment is predominately residential in use, aside from the adjoining property to the south of the subject site at 148 Gillies Avenue, which is a healthcare service centre. The existing two storey building on site operates as a 27-bedroom boarding house for medium to long-term accommodation. Vehicle access is provided from the northeast corner of the site and there is parking provided within the front yard and down the east side of the dwelling. At the rear of the site, there is a timber ramp providing access between the subject site and 148 Gillies Avenue. Background The notification decision for the previous application (R/LUC/2016/2962) was made on the 27 October 2016, the applicant withdrew this application. In light of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), hereafter AUP (OP) which is to be treated as operative by way of s86f and Clause 20, as of 15 November 2016, the applicant lodged a new application on 16 November 2016 and only applied for reasons for consent under the AUP (OP). The decision for notification of the re-lodged application was made on 17 November The specialist input advice obtained as part of the initial application remains the same and relevant for this application. As part of the initial application, the demolition of the existing building required consent as a restricted discretionary activity under the PAUP Notified Version. As of 19 August 2016, when the Decisions Version was released, the Pre-1944 building demolition control overlay fell away and the building can now be removed as of right. 4. Reasons for the application Resource consents are needed for the following reasons: Land use consents (s9) R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) o o o o The development requires 1596m 3 of earthworks over an area of approximately 1200m 2. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E12.4.1(A5 & A9). The proposal requires the removal of two street trees over 4m in height or 400mm in girth. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E17.4.1(A10). Of the required earthworks, approximately m 3 will involve rock breaking. This will exceed construction noise limits of 70 dbl aeq by 10-15dBA for 14 days, and by 0-5dBA for an additional 6 days, at all adjacent boundaries to the source extent. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E25.4.1(A2). The health care facility requires 47 car parking spaces to be provided on site (E (T72). A total of 26 car parking spaces will be provided in the basement car park. This is a shortfall of 21 spaces. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 4 9

10 o o o o o o o o The proposal requires two mobility spaces to be provided pursuant to NZS: (E27.6.2(10)). Only one mobility space is provided. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). The health care facility requires 5 bicycle parking spaces (Standard E (T98)). Four bicycle spaces are provided, therefore there will be a shortfall of one space. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). The basement car parking spaces only achieve a manoeuvring depth of 6.2m, where 7.0m is required (Standard E (T117)). This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). The basement car parking spaces do not comply with the 85 th percentile car tracking curve as required by Standard E (1). This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). The mobility space within the basement car park does not comply with the minimum vertical clearance height of 2.5m (Standard E (b)), as only 2.3m is provided. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). The vehicles crossings will only achieve a separation distance of 3.8m, where a minimum distance of 6m is required (Standard E (T146)). Additionally, there are two crossings provided across a site frontage of 23.16m, where only one crossing is permitted per 25m of frontage (Standard E (T146)). This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule E27.4.1(A2). The healthcare facility will have a gross floor area of 947m 2. The development for a health care facility with a gross floor area greater than 200m 2 in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25). The proposed building does not comply with the height in relation to boundary standard of H4.6.5 by the following: o o The building will infringe along the west boundary by a maximum vertical height of 3.6m over a maximum horizontal length of 19.73m. The building will infringe along the south boundary by a maximum vertical height of 5.94m over a maximum horizontal length of 8.32m. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A33). o o o Any new building in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone has the same activity status as the land use activity which it is designed to accommodate. Therefore, the construction of the new healthcare building is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A34). The proposed building will infringe the maximum height (8m+1m) Standard (H4.6.4), by 1.9m vertically over 22m horizontally. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25) and C1.9. The proposed free-standing sign is technically a building pursuant to the definitions under Chapter J. This sign will infringe the front yard setback requirement pursuant to Standard H The sign will be setback 0.2m from the front boundary, where 3m is Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 5 10

11 required. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25) and C1.9. o o o o The proposed building will infringe the rear yard setback (1m) standard (H4.6.7), by 740mm, where only 260mm setback is provided. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25) and C1.9. The proposal will infringe the maximum impervious area (60%) standard (H4.6.8), by 3% or 38m 2, with a total maximum impervious area or 63% of 787.4m 2. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25) and C1.9. The proposal will infringe the maximum building coverage (40%) standard (H4.6.9), by 2% or 24.8m 2, with a total maximum impervious area of 42% or 524.4m 2. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25) and C1.9. The proposal will infringe the minimum landscape area (40%) standard (H4.6.10), by 4.7% or 58.7m 2, with a total landscaped area of 35.3% or 440.9m 2. The standard also requires 50% of the front yard area to be landscape area. The proposal infringes this standard by 8.8% or 6.25m 2, with 41.2% or 28.49m 2 landscaped. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to Rule H4.4.1(A25) and C Status of the applications The proposal involves multiple resource consents. Where there is an overlap between the consents and / or the effects of the activities so that consideration of one could affect the outcome of another the appropriate practice is to treat the applications together. In this instance: The consents required, and the matters controlled under the AUP(OP), overlap in the following regards: o Discretionary activity consent is required in regards to the proposed activity within the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone o All other consents are required as restricted discretionary activities. The resource consents required overlap, and are considered together as a discretionary activity status overall. 6. Notification and submissions Notification background Notice of the application was served on 18 December 2016 on those persons identified as being adversely affected by the proposal. A total of 56 persons were served notice across 7 sites. All notification matters (under ss95 to 95G) were addressed in the notification determination report (refer attachment 3). Submissions When the submission period ended, a total of 6 submissions were received and 1 submission was received one day late after the close of the submission period. A recommendation on the late submission is made below. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 6 11

12 Legend: Support Oppose Neutral Others who were notified Figure 2. Map showing location of submitters Of the submissions received: 2 in support 1 neutral 4 opposing A summary of the issues raised in submissions together with the relief sought by the submitters is set out below. This table is only a summary of the key issues raised in submissions. For the specific details, refer to the full set of submissions, included in attachment 4 to this report. This summary of submissions identifies the following: the issues raised in submissions in terms of the key issues below details any relief sought by the submitter whether a submitter wishes to be heard at the hearing. Summary of submissions Issues raised: 1. Traffic parking shortfall, congestion, safety issues 2. Noise and vibration from rock breaking Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 7 12

13 Issues raised: 3. Privacy and overlooking 4. Bulk and dominance 5. Is in keeping with existing development 6. Much needed healthcare service 7. Shading 8. Impact on lifestyle and values of neighbourhood 9. No public benefit 10. Bundling of consents disagreement with notification and requests public notification 11. Damage to property 12. Groundwater disturbance 13. Soil stability Relief sought: A. Refuse consent B. Grant consent C. Refuse, or grant consent subject to amending design D. Provide further information The following table summarises the submissions received: No Name Physical address Issues raised Relief sought To be heard 1 Zhongwei Qiao 19A Domett Avenue, Epsom 1, 2, 3 A Y 2 Wataru Okada and Lu Wei Hii 20B Kipling Avenue, Epsom 1, 4 C N 3 The Owners of Endoscopy Auckland and Laparoscopy Auckland 148 Gillies Avenue, Epsom 2 D Y 4 David Merrilees 148 Gillies Avenue, Epsom 5, 6 B - Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 8 13

14 5 Ryan McMullen 4/146 Gillies Avenue, Epsom 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 A Y 6 Saad Al-Dewani 20C Kipling Avenue, Epsom 2, 11, 12, 13 A Y 7 Andrew C R Bowker 148 Gillies Avenue, Epsom 6 B N Key: For those wishing to be heard - means not stated Submissions in italics identify late submissions received Late submissions At the start of the hearing, the independent hearing commissioners must decide whether to extend the closing date for submissions. For this decision, the considerations under s37 and 37A of the RMA in making this decision are: the interests of any person who, in the council s opinion, may be directly affected by the waiver; the interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal; and the council s duty under s21 of the RMA to avoid unreasonable delay. One submission was received after the close of submissions (identified in the above table) and was received on 20 December, one working day after the close of submission period (19 December). The submitter advised that he was away from his address and unable to collect mail, the submitter has not raised any new issues and is in support of the application. A recommendation on the above late submissions is included in section 15 of this report. Written Approvals The following people have provided their written approval, which were still current at the time of preparing of this report: Table 2 Address Legal Description Owner or Occupier 1/24 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Flat 1 DP on Lot 1 DP 56499, Garage 1 DP /24 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Flat 2 DP on Lot 1 DP 56499, Garage 1 DP Shirley Cooper - Owner and Occupier Kipling House Limited John Dunn Owner (the agent advised that the residence is vacant) 148 Gillies Avenue, Epsom Lot 44 DP 4065 John Dunn - Owner The assessment under s104 (in section 8 below of this report) has to disregard any adverse effect on these persons as they have provided written approval to the proposal (s104(3)(b)). Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 9 14

15 Amendments to the application following notification After the submission period ended, the applicant provided further information on a number of matters. These changes and extra information are included in attachment 5 of this report. This information forms part of the application and is considered in this report. The amendments are considered to be within the scope of the original application, and therefore re-notification of the application was not required. All submitters were given written or electronic notice that the information is available at the council office on 13/02/2017. The further information is as follows: Letter regarding no adverse displacement effects on groundwater Further shading diagrams, including a comparison to a compliant building Further assessment of noise and vibration effects and proposed conditions of consent Updated landscaping package Consideration of the application 7. Statutory considerations Resource Management Act 1991 When considering an application for resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity the council must have regard to Part 2 ( purpose and principles sections 5 to 8), and sections 104, 104B and where relevant section 108. In considering any application for resource consent and any submissions received, the council must have regard to the following requirements under s104(1) which are subject to Part 2 (the purpose and principles): any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; any relevant provisions of national policy statements, New Zealand coastal policy statement; a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan, a national environmental standard (NES), or any other regulations; and any other matter the council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. When considering any actual or potential effects, the council may disregard any adverse effects that arise from permitted activities in a NES or a plan (the permitted baseline). The council has discretion whether to apply this permitted baseline. For a discretionary activity or non-complying activity the council may grant or refuse consent (under s104b). If it grants the application, it may impose conditions under s108. Section 108 provides for consent to be granted subject to conditions and sets out the kind of conditions that may be imposed. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 10 15

16 8. Actual and potential effects on the environment s104(1)(a) Effects that must be disregarded Any effect on a person who has given written approval to the application The written approval of the persons set out in section 6 of this report has been provided, and the effects on these have been disregarded. Legend: Owners and occupiers Owner only Figure 3. Persons who have provided their written approval Trade competition The property at 148 Gillies Avenue operates as a healthcare facility. There are a range of healthcare providers at this address specialising in endoscopic and laparoscopic care. There is the potential to be trade competition effects should both healthcare centres provide the same treatment. These trade competition effects will be disregarded. Effects that may be disregarded Permitted baseline assessment The permitted baseline refers to permitted activities on the subject site. In this case, any healthcare facility requires consent, furthermore, the construction of the building providing for this healthcare activity also requires consent. New buildings for up to two residential dwellings Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 11 16

17 that comply with the standards are a permitted activity and the removal of the existing dwelling is a permitted activity. Visitor accommodation, boarding houses and supported residential care with 10 people or less (inclusive of staff) is a permitted activity. Care centres accommodating up to 10 people (excluding staff) is also a permitted activity. The standards of the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone provide a useful comparison of an anticipated and permitted building envelope. Earthworks up to 500m 2 and 250m 3 are a permitted activity. This is the permitted baseline - and these adverse effects may be disregarded, as the level of adverse effects are accepted under the plan as permitted. Only other or further adverse effects over and above the permitted baseline are then considered. Receiving environment The receiving environment is made up of: the existing environment and associated effects from lawfully established activities; effects from any consents on the subject site (not impacted by proposal) that are likely to be implemented; the existing environment as modified by any resource consents granted and likely to be implemented; and the environment as likely to be modified by activities permitted in the plan. This is the reasonably foreseeable environment within which the adverse effects of the proposal are considered. In this case this includes the existing lawfully established boarding house activity and the building on the subject site and associated car parking. The AEE and plans provide a comparison of the existing building to the proposed building in terms of bulk and location on the subject site. The existing building currently infringes maximum height and height in relation to boundary controls as they apply in this location. The boarding house activity has 27 bedrooms and provides for up to four car parking spaces in the front yard. The AEE explains that at full occupancy, the boarding house activity would have a car parking shortfall of up to 16 spaces. There are no unimplemented consents on the subject site or adjacent sites which would form part of the receiving environment. Image of current site as viewed from Kipling Avenue Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 12 17

18 Assessment of effects While having regard to the above, the following assessment is done after I have: analysed the application (including any proposed mitigation measures); visited the site and surrounds; reviewed the council s records; reviewed the submissions received; and taken advice from appropriate experts. The following actual and potential effects have been identified. Positive effects The proposal will provide a new healthcare facility for the wider public s benefit. Two submitters from 148 Gillies Avenue have expressed their support of the proposal and noted the positive effect of providing a much-needed service in terms of bowel screening and endoscopy facilities. Further, the location of the healthcare service next to and near other healthcare facilities in the Epsom area is positive for patients and staff who may need to visit multiple centres. The convenience of the healthcare facility adjacent to the existing facility at 148 Gillies Avenue is assumed to be a positive effect for the applicant and staff operating out of both facilities. Another positive effect is the increased landscaped amenity which will be provided by the proposed landscaping of the site, when compared to the existing situation. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 13 18

19 Adverse effects Streetscape amenity The removal of the street trees for the new vehicle crossing has the potential to create a loss of landscaped amenity within the streetscape. There were no submissions made which raised concerns about the removal of the street trees. The applicant has proposed to replace these street trees, one within the berm outside the subject site and one within the wider area around Kipling Avenue. The replacement species will be native, likely a Kohekohe or Puriri tree. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed landscaping within the subject site which will also add to the landscaped amenity of the neighbourhood. The loss of street trees will be sufficiently mitigated by replacement planting and overall will be acceptable. Council Specialist Urban Designer Pilar Garcia Domingo has provided specialist advice in regards to urban design matters prior to notification of the application. Ms. Domingo left Council during the notification period of the application, Specialist Urban Designer Sarah Cameron from Opus Ltd provided additional urban design input following the close of submissions and generally concurs with Ms Domingo s assessment. Ms. Domingo concurs with the AEE in that the surrounding streetscape has a variety of built forms, and therefore a contemporary building is compatible to the mixed streetscape character of Kipling Avenue. The public areas of the facility including the reception, staff room and waiting areas are located at the front of the building overlooking the streetscape and providing passive surveillance of the street. The generous setback and landscaped area of the front yard will compensate the potential car predominance of the wide driveway. At the street frontage only one vehicle crossing is permitted as of right. The proposal is for two vehicle crossings, that is, the existing crossing will be reduced in size and an additional double crossing will be constructed. The multiple vehicle crossings increase the hardstand area within the front yard; however, due to the proposed landscaping and setback of the building by 12.4m, I consider that a reasonable level of amenity is achieved within the front yard and as viewed from the streetscape. The proposed free standing sign will be 2.3m tall and 1.2m wide and located near the front road boundary. In comparison to the width of the street frontage and the scale of the healthcare facility building, the proposed free standing sign is not considered to have adverse bulk or dominance effects on the streetscape. The proposed sign on the building façade is large in area (10m 2 ) and will be easily visible from the wider environment, however due to the setback of 17m from the front boundary, any dominance effects on the streetscape amenity are considered to be acceptable. The scale and nature of the proposed building with the semi-basement car park and signage will not appear residential in nature. However, due to the setback, modulation, varied materials and proposed landscaping within an existing varied streetscape, I consider that the effects on the streetscape character and amenity of the street will be acceptable. Residential amenity The proposed building will exceed the permitted height, height in relation to boundary, yard setbacks, impervious area, building coverage and landscaped area standards for the Mixed Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 14 19

20 Housing Suburban Zone. This has the potential to affect the residential amenity beyond what could be reasonably anticipated in this zone. Three submitters raised concerns regarding loss of residential amenity for their properties on adjacent sites. The adverse effects which may contribute to the loss of residential amenity will be assessed below: Bulk and dominance The proposed built form is larger in scale in terms of height, building coverage and is closer to the rear southern boundary than what could be anticipated. The building will also infringe the southern and western height in relation to boundary standards. The building form is designed to recess with each higher level, therefore stepping back from the east and west boundaries with height. On each elevation, the design incorporates a mix of materials in order to reduce the perception of adverse bulk effects and provide modulation of the building. These materials include profiled metal cladding, cedar weatherboards, planted green walls and windows with vertical panels. Whilst these mitigation measures have been applied to mitigate the impression of bulk and dominant presence of the building, due to the scale of the building, being 40m in length and nearly 10m in height, the building bulk is significantly greater than what could be anticipated on the subject site in this residential zone. The further information provided by the applicant after close of submissions shows a site plan and elevations of what a compliant built form could look like. The compliant building shown is 46m in length and 8m high, with no vertical modulation, but has slight modulation horizontally and is further setback from all external boundaries except the front yard. Whilst the hypothetical building is comparable in length, the height and position of the actual proposed building on the site causes the scale of the building to appear significantly greater than what could be anticipated. As shown on the compliant scheme, a residential development would have larger areas of private open space, particularly near external boundaries. Overall, I consider adverse bulk and dominance effects, particularly for persons on adjacent sites, to be more than what could be anticipated in the residential zone. Shading The height and bulk of the building has the potential to cause shading effects beyond what could be anticipated in this residential zone. The shading diagrams provided as part of the application show the proposed shading in comparison to the shading generated by the existing building on the site, and in comparison to the shading from a compliant built form, in April to September, June and December. In the diagrams showing April - September, the shading from the proposed development is slightly more but generally comparable to the existing shading. In the morning, the shading will fall on to the private open space at 146 Gillies Avenue and in the evening, onto the driveway areas of 20A-C Kipling Avenue. In the diagrams showing June 21 st, there is additional shading on 146 Gillies Avenue at 9am, extending towards the flats 4 and 5 on that site. This is significantly more shading than shown in the existing and the compliant shading diagrams. At 12pm, there is a small amount of additional shading on 148 Gillies Avenue. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 15 20

21 At 3pm, there is a reduction in shading for 20B Kipling Avenue and a slight increase of shading for 20C Kipling Avenue in comparison to what is existing (as shown in the shadow study elevation diagrams). There is no additional shading on 20A Kipling Avenue. There is additional shading onto 19A Domett Avenue. In the diagrams showing Dec 21 st, the shading is mostly contained within the subject site, and comparable to the existing and a compliant form. As can be seen in the image below, the dwellings at 20A-C Kipling Avenue are in close proximity to the driveway area. The shading of this area is not considered to affect sensitive space, such as private open space or rooms within the dwellings. Overall, the adverse shading effects on persons at 20A-C Kipling Avenue are considered to be comparable to the existing shading and shading of a compliant form. Image showing properties at 20A-C Kipling Avenue (from the north) The shading on 1-5/146 Gillies Avenue will occur in the mornings as this site is to the west of the subject site. The following Certificate of Title plan shows the layout of the site. Area D is exclusive to flat 4, and area E is exclusive to Flat 5. The shading will only affect these areas. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 16 21

22 Image showing Certificate of Title plan for 1-5/146 Gillies Avenue The diagrams for shading in June show additional shading across the exclusive outdoor areas for both Flats 4 and 5. The increased shading is a result of the additional height and length of the building compared to the existing building and a compliant built form. This will reduce the amenity for persons on 146 Gillies Avenue and this would also affect any future development potential for that site. Any shading onto the property at 19A Domett Avenue will only be after 3pm and as shown on the shading diagrams will be worst in June. There is currently no shading on this site from existing buildings on the subject site; however, the existing Himalayan Cedar tree located on the subject site, which is approximately 12m high, would currently shade 19A Domett Avenue. In comparison to a compliant form, there is slightly more shading along the west of the dwelling. This shading will fall on the private open space and lounge/living rooms of 19A Domett Avenue (see image below). Whilst only being during the winter months of the year, this additional shading is more than what could be anticipated and is affecting a sensitive space within the site. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 17 22

23 Image of site plan of 19A Domett Avenue Image of floor plan for 19A Domett Avenue There will be some additional shading onto the property at 148 Gillies Avenue. This area where the shading will fall is a side yard area and being a healthcare facility, is not used as private open space. There are limited windows on this north elevation which are screened by shutters. For these reasons, the shading on 148 Gillies Avenue is considered acceptable. Overall, the additional shading for persons on 4 and 5/146 Gillies Avenue and 19A Domett Avenue is significantly more than what could be anticipated from a complying development and more than existing, therefore I consider this to be an unacceptable level of effects. The shading from the development on other sites is comparable to either existing or compliant form shading and therefore is an acceptable level of effects for these adjacent persons. Privacy and overlooking The windows and glazing from the proposed building have the potential to cause privacy and overlooking effects for persons on adjacent sites. The windows proposed on the first floor facing the eastern boundary are from the consultant and waiting rooms. These windows at the first floor will be partially screened by proposed native vegetation along the common boundary. The largest window from the waiting room will be partially screened by open timber shutters. The limited-scale secondary storey windows facing the east boundary are from the administration and laundry areas. There is a top-floor deck located off the staff room. This is screened by open timber slats and located at least 11m away from the eastern boundary. The private open space areas for 20A-C Kipling Avenue are located to the northeast of the respective dwellings this is away from any potential privacy and overlooking from the proposed healthcare facility. Overall, the adverse privacy and overlooking effects are considered to be acceptable for any persons at 20A-C Kipling Avenue. On the west elevation, windows from the first floor are associated with consultant rooms and on the top floor the windows facing the west are from a corridor. As such, these windows are Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 18 23

24 associated with frequently used spaces; however, the nature of the healthcare facility will mean that overlooking towards adjacent sites may actually be infrequent as professionals and patients within the healthcare facility will be occupied by their business there. There is limited planting proposed along this boundary which will not screen the glazing or mitigate any overlooking and privacy effects. The numerous windows in conjunction with the scale of the building may create the perception of being overlooked for persons at 4 and 5/146 Gillies Avenue, but actual overlooking will be limited due to the nature of the activity proposed and will therefore be acceptable There are no rear windows located on the proposed building which could overlook the adjacent properties to the south. The privacy and overlooking effects from the glazing facing north are considered to be acceptable as these windows will overlook the front yard of the subject site and the street which is a public space. The separation distance from any adjacent sites across the road will mean the privacy and overlooking onto these properties is acceptable. Overall, whilst persons on adjacent sites may have the perception of loss of privacy and overlooking due to the scale of the development and the presence of numerous windows, the actual privacy and overlooking effects are considered to be mitigated by screen planting, window treatments and the general use of the spaces near large areas of glazing to be limited. Operational noise and lighting The operation of the healthcare facility has the potential to generate noise which could affect the residential amenity of nearby residents. Possible noise sources include an emergency generator and mechanical ventilation units, as well as traffic noise effects and the occasional ambulance (noting that there is no emergency department). Aside from the loading space, all parking is located in the semi-basement parking and therefore noise associated with vehicle manoeuvring will be contained within the building. The AEE explains that the vehicles using the dedicated loading space will be for gas delivery services and presumably couriers, and this will be infrequent in comparison to the use of the other onsite parking spaces. The applicant s noise specialist Marshall Day Acoustics, has confirmed that the generator will be turned off between the hours of 10pm and 7am, as the healthcare facility is a day-time only facility and overall the noise generated from operation will comply with AUP(OP) noise limits. Overall, the noise effects from the operation of the healthcare facility are considered to be acceptable. The proposed signage will not be backlit or include flashing lights, rather it will be dimly lit from the base which is proposed to comply with lighting standards. This is not considered to generate adverse glare effects on residential amenity. There is no other lighting proposed. Conclusion - Residential amenity The operational noise and lighting of the healthcare facility will have an acceptable level of effects on residential amenity; however, the scale of the building will cause adverse bulk, dominance, and shading effects. Whilst there a numerous mitigation measures proposed, I am of the opinion that the adverse effects are not sufficiently avoided and mitigated to maintain a level of residential amenity that is anticipated in this zone. This is due to the intensity of the proposed activity. For example if the facility was of a lower intensity there would be less consulting rooms, less surgery rooms, less car parking required, which would allow the scale of Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 19 24

25 the building to be reduced. Thereby reducing the dominance, bulk and shading effects generated. Transportation effects Traffic Planning Consultants (TPC) have prepared a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) on behalf of the applicant. Prior to notification, Shruti Gadgil provided specialist input in regards to transportation matters on behalf of Council. Following notification, Ms. Gadgil left Abley Consultants and Ross Rutherford has since provided specialist input on transportation matters on behalf of Council. Traffic generation One submitter from 19A Domett Avenue raised concerns about traffic problems. In terms of traffic generation, the TIA estimates the health care facility will generate 142 vehicle movements per day, and 20 vehicles movements during the peak hour. Ms. Gadgil has advised that this traffic generation is unlikely to have any demonstrable effect on the existing traffic flow in the immediate or surrounding areas. Further to this, Mr. Rutherford has advised that it is anticipated that the increased vehicle movements will be shared by each intersection to Kipling Avenue and an additional 10 vehicle movements at peak time is not expected to cause operational issues. Based on this advice, I am of the opinion that the additional traffic generated from the proposed healthcare facility will be acceptable on the surrounding road network. Parking dimensions One submitter from 4/146 Gillies Avenue raised concerns about the reduced manoeuvring dimensions on site. In terms of the stacked car parks, Ms. Gadgil has advised that there is sufficient manoeuvring length provided for a regular car user, but is 1m short for casual user manoeuvring. The stacked parking spaces are located away from the front of the site and therefore will not create a conflict with access, and are to be used by staff who are more regular users than patients and visitors; therefore, she advises that this is acceptable. Ms. Gadgil has advised that the accessibility space is acceptable and raised no concerns about the single space. The stacked parking will be used by staff and the front car parks will be easily used by visitors/patients. As these spaces are usable, there is a low risk of persons not using these spaces and instead parking on the road. Based on this advice, there is adequate space on site to provide for safe onsite manoeuvring and ensuring vehicles exit forward from the subject site, and will avoid any overspill of parking onto the road network. Parking shortfall Two submitters raised concerns about the car parking shortfall and the effects on the road network in terms of parking overspill. Ms. Gadgil has advised that the car parking shortfall is considered acceptable because of the anticipated actual demand being catered for. The operation of this specialised healthcare facility will dictate the number of patients and therefore car parking demand. All staff will have an allocated car parking space. All stacked spaces will be allocated for staff use, the remaining four spaces (including the accessible space) will be available for visitors. Based on the information provided by the AEE and TPC, Ms Gadgil is of Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 20 25

26 the opinion that it is likely that most surgery patients will be dropped off and picked up, therefore not requiring an onsite car park for the duration of their appointment. It is also noted that there are alternative transport options available for both staff and patients. However, practically it is unlikely that patients requiring surgery would utilise public transport. The four bicycle parks proposed will provide alternative transport options, as well as the public transport options along Gillies Avenue and Manukau Road, should staff (or patients/ visitors) wish to utilise this. In addition to what Ms. Gadgil has advised, Mr. Rutherford has reviewed the proposal and addressed the concerns raised in the submissions. Whilst the proposal will result in a technical car parking shortfall of 21 spaces, Mr Rutherford has advised that this shortfall does not accurately reflect the actual parking demand of the individual development. When considering the actual operation and use of the healthcare facility, it is anticipated that vehicles can be almost completely accommodated on site. If on-street parking was required on occasion, the car parking survey by TPC revealed that between 15 and 30 parking spaces were available during weekdays. Furthermore, the existing operation of the 27-bedroom boarding house has a theoretical car parking shortfall of 12 spaces, therefore in comparison, and based on the actual demand generated by the healthcare facility, it is anticipated to generate less on-street car parking demand. Overall, based on the advice from Mr. Rutherford and Ms. Gadgil, the actual and potential effects generated by the parking shortfall are considered acceptable as the actual demand of the healthcare facility will be accommodated on site and if on street parking is required, this will be a limited amount and there are sufficient spaces available in the surrounding road network to not displace any other users of the on-street parking facilities. Construction traffic The ITA by TPC has estimated an average of 10 truck vehicle movements per day during the construction period of 18 months. Ms. Gadgil has recommended that with a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), this will be managed accordingly to avoid adverse traffic effects. Based on this advice, the construction traffic effects are considered acceptable. Traffic and pedestrian safety As discussed above, there is sufficient onsite manoeuvring provided to ensure all vehicles except loading vehicles will exit the site in a forwards facing direction. The TIA has assessed the effects on the two vehicle crossings proposed. The vehicle crossing for the loading space will not be frequently used, therefore is unlikely to cause a conflict between vehicles accessing the site via the wider vehicle crossing. Furthermore, the crossings will be separated by 3.8m, therefore space for pedestrian relief will be available between the two crossings. There will be clear visibility for both crossings as described in the TIA, and there will be no front yard fencing which would restrict this visibility and front yard landscaping is positioned clear of sightlines onto the road. The proposed free-standing sign is limited in width to 1.3m, therefore will not obstruct sightlines for vehicles or pedestrians. The loading space will require reverse manoeuvring into the site or onto the road. This loading space has its own vehicle crossing, therefore will not conflict with the other vehicles. As mentioned above, there will be clear site lines for loading vehicles as there will be no front yard fencing, and landscaping will not impair Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 21 26

27 visibility. I consider the actual and potential effects in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety to be acceptable. Summary Based on the TIA by TPC and the above advice from Ms. Gadgil and Mr. Rutherford, I am of the opinion that the actual and potential effects in terms of traffic related matters will acceptable. Infrastructure capacity effects Stormwater The applicant proposes to construct a private on-site soak hole for stormwater disposal. Council s consultant engineer Ms. Kisseleff has advised that based on the information provided in the report: Stormwater Drainage and Public Sanitary Sewer Overview dated 20 June 2016, by Beca as part of the application, the soakage rates are acceptable. The stormwater run-off from the proposed impervious areas will be adequately managed via onsite soakage and therefore will avoid any runoff effects beyond the subject site. Overall, this stormwater management approach is considered acceptable. Wastewater The applicant proposes to redirect the public wastewater line traversing the rear of the subject site. This is required for the basement construction as this could not be built over the existing wastewater line. The design has been reviewed and approved by Watercare Services Limited in principle. Ms. Kisseleff has advised that this approach is acceptable and has not raised concerns about affecting the public wastewater connections or the wider environment. Based on this advice, I consider the actual and potential effects on public wastewater infrastructure to be acceptable. Flooding/overland flow There is an overland flow path shown on Council s GIS to traverse through the subject site from the west to the southeast corner of the site. The applicant s engineers from Beca have advised that after review, this overland flow path does not follow the path shown on the GIS. Rather, the flow enters the driveway of 146 Gillies Avenue and flows through the rear of the subject site. The proposed development on the subject site will therefore not obstruct the overland flow path and the capacity and entry and exit points of the flow path will remain unchanged. Ms Kisseleff has reviewed this information from Beca and concurred with their assessment. Based on this advice, the proposal will have an acceptable level of effects on flooding and the overland flow path. Groundwater The proposal involves excavation up to 4.5m in depth to establish the semi-basement car park. One submitter raised concerns about the effects this excavation would have in terms of the displacement of groundwater. The applicant s engineering consultants from Beca have advised that during the borehole testing up to 18m, there was no groundwater encountered across the subject site. Council Team leader for Water Allocation Greg Murphy has reviewed the information provided by Beca and concurred that based on results from borehole testing, there Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 22 27

28 is unlikely to be any groundwater displacement. As such, the actual and potential effects in terms of groundwater are considered to be acceptable. Construction effects Stability and run-off effects The large volume of earthworks is required to establish the sub-floor basement. The submitter from 20C Kipling Avenue has raised concerns in terms of soil stability issues during excavations. Ms. Kisseleff has advised that based on the report titled Geotechnical Interpretive Report, dated 20 June 2016, by Beca, the site is relatively flat and there are no stability issues identified, the proposed excavations are generally consistent with the contours of the site and will not generate stability issues. The geotechnical report by Beca notes that any retaining greater than 1m will be specifically designed with backfill parameters to ensure stability of the site is maintained. Ms. Kisseleff has advised that the erosion and sediment control measures proposed in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will ensure there are no silt and sediment run-off beyond the subject site. Overall, I consider the effects from earthworks to be acceptable as the control measures, such as implementation of a sediment control plan and engineering of retaining walls, will ensure adverse run-off and instability issues are avoided. Noise and vibration effects Rock breaking is required during excavation to construct the sub-floor basement. The construction works will require m 3 of rock breaking at maximum depth of 4.5m. The rock breaking works required will occur over a period of 14 days with a 20-ton excavator which will exceed the permitted construction noise limit by 10-15dBA, and an additional 6 days with a 5- ton excavator which will exceed the standards by 0-5dBA. The cumulative duration of rock breaking will not exceed 20 calendar days. The overall demolition and construction period is anticipated to exceed 20 weeks, therefore the long term construction limits apply. Most of the rock breaking activity is required in the south-west corner of the site. The noise and vibration effects are most likely to affect those persons on adjacent sites. Four submitters on adjacent sites raised concerns about the adverse noise and vibration effects from the proposed rock breaking. The adjacent site to the south at 148 Gillies Avenue operates as a healthcare service centre. A submitter operating from this address raised concerns about the effects of noise and vibration on the operation of this sensitive activity. Council asked the applicant to further assess the effects of noise and vibration on these persons. The applicant s specialist Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) advised that the closest and most relevant spaces at 148 Gillies Avenue to where the construction works will occur are consulting rooms, ancillary spaces and multiple recovery rooms. The operating theatres and other recovery rooms are located on the south side of the building, and therefore further away from the construction works. With the proposed mitigation measures in place such as both temporary and permanent acoustic fencing, MDA predicts noise levels of db L Aeq in the closest rooms and db L Aeq at the more distance ancillary and consulting rooms. Mr Dunn (the applicant and owner of 148 Gillies Avenue) has advised that the previous extension to the facility at 148 Gillies Avenue required similar rock breaking and the hospital Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 23 28

29 activity was able to continue to operate during this time. Mr Dunn owns the building at 148 Gillies Avenue and is not concerned about cosmetic damage. MDA have confirmed that in terms of the amenity effects on occupants and the effects on business activity from vibration, the rock breaking will comply with the standards (E (1)(b). Mr Dunn has confirmed that spaces sensitive to noise and vibration, such as consultation and recovery rooms can be temporarily relocated to the other side of the building if required. Based on this information, Council Environmental Health Specialist for Noise, Mr. Bin Qiu has advised that proposed mitigation measures are practicable and that he can support the approach and management measures (including the MDA proposed mitigation measures such as communication, acoustic fencing and monitoring), to deal with the potential construction noise and vibration generated by the construction works. The submitter from 20C Kipling Avenue raised concerns about the structural effects of vibration on their property. MDA have advised that the proposed works will comply with the vibration standards for residential buildings as the rock breaking is at least 10m from the foundation of any residential buildings, therefore the potential for structural and cosmetic building damage is avoided. The applicant has also offered to carry out Pre-Construction Building Condition Assessments for the owners of the buildings at 20B and 20C Kipling Avenue and 146 Gillies Avenue which will identify any damage from the rock breaking works and the applicant will ensure any resulting damage will be repaired at the consent holder s expense. Other mitigation which the applicant proposes includes replacing the existing east and west boundary fences with permanent acoustic fencing, and temporary acoustic fencing on the north and south boundaries during construction activity. The provision and adherence to a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan will detail control, mitigation and monitoring for the construction noise and vibration, and procedures for communicating with neighbours and to deal with complaints. Occupiers of properties within 50m of the works will receive written notification of the details of timing and duration of rock breaking, along with a contact for complaints and queries. The directly adjacent properties to the east, west and south will be further consulted to understand the most sensitive time periods and to inform appropriate mitigation and management. Mr. Qiu has advised that. The noise exceedance resulted from rock breaking is expected to be limited due to large part of the site is underlaid with fractured or loose rocks which do not require hard rock breaking. Mr. Qiu also explains that short term exceedance of noise limits is not uncommon for construction and often considered acceptable if restricted to a limited duration and best practical measures are implemented. Whilst the rock breaking will still exceed noise limits, it will comply with vibration standards. The period will be temporary and the applicant has proposed mitigation measures which are the best practical option to reduce the adverse noise effects as much as possible for the adjacent sites. For these reasons, I consider the noise and vibration effects to be sufficiently mitigated to an acceptable level. Cumulative effects The healthcare facility will operate from Monday to Friday from 7.30am to 6.30pm, Saturday from 8.00am to 12.00pm and will be closed on Sunday. The facility will be operated by a Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 24 29

30 maximum of 18 staff, and it is anticipated that 25 or less procedures will be carried out per day (therefore generating a maximum of 25 patients per day). For those persons nearest the subject site, the effects will be most apparent. The noise, vibration and construction traffic effects will be temporary whilst other effects, such as effects on residential amenity from the physical building and the operation of the activity, will be permanent effects. The overall bulk and scale of the building is greater than what could be anticipated in this residential zone. The proposed building, with its scale being determined by the proposed intensity of the healthcare activity on the site (including number of consulting rooms, other facilities and car parking) generates bulk, dominance, and shading effects that are greater than what could be expected from complying developments on the site. For instance, even if multiple units were located on the subject site, this type of development would maintain some openness of the site, with dwellings (both detached and potential terraced housing typology, as anticipated for this zone) usually being surrounded by some open space if complying with the zone standards. These effects on residential amenity are further compounded by the operation of the healthcare centre and the increase in the number of people on site who are coming and going, which is greater than what could be anticipated by a residential use. Based on the applicant s traffic assessment, the operation is anticipated to result in 142 vehicle movements per day. The healthcare facility will operate at a higher intensity than what could be anticipated from a residential use or a permitted-scale boarding house, care centre, supported residential care or visitor accommodation which are all restricted to 10 persons and would have less associated vehicle movements. It is important to note that in the surrounding environment in Epsom, mainly along Gillies Avenue, there are a number of healthcare services operating which are of a similar scale to the proposal. These operations are mainly along Gillies Avenue, a busy arterial road, rather than on a residential side-street like Kipling Avenue. For the persons at 1-5/146 Gillies Avenue, healthcare facilities will be operating along two of their boundaries. This will isolate these properties from other residential activities. Whilst it is acknowledged that non-residential activities can occur in this zone, it is considered that the scale and intensity of this proposed non-residential activity is greater than what could be reasonably anticipated and will significantly reduce the residential amenity enjoyed by persons on this site. For these persons, an additional healthcare facility in this location, and in particular of the proposed scale and intensity, will erode the anticipated residential character of the zone. Overall, whilst individually the effects may be partially acceptable, the scale of the building resulting from the proposed intensity of the activity, in combination with the adjacent healthcare facility, it is my opinion that the actual and potential cumulative effects on adjacent persons will not be acceptable. I consider that the proposal may be acceptable if the intensity was reduced, which would result in the possibility of reducing the scale and bulk of the building, which would mitigate some of the effects on residential amenity, particular in terms of bulk, dominance and shading. Summary of effects Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 25 30

31 Having considered the proposal, the relevant specialist reports and mitigation, it is considered that overall the proposal will have an unacceptable level of actual and potential effects in regards to residential amenity. In particular: - The proposal would have a wider public benefit of providing a much-needed healthcare service in a central location near other healthcare facilities. - The construction effects such as noise and vibration and earthworks effects would be acceptable as they are temporary only and can be sufficiently mitigated. - The effects on streetscape character and visual amenity would be acceptable. - Transportation effects would be acceptable. - Effects in terms of infrastructure capacity would be acceptable. - Effects in terms of stormwater run-off would be acceptable. - The operational noise effects would be acceptable. - The residential amenity is affected to an unacceptable level due to cumulative effects, resulting from the proposed intensity of the activity, which then generates the need for the large scale building.. Overall, whilst there will be a positive effect of providing an additional healthcare facility in the area, and while not significantly affecting the functioning of the road network, the public infrastructure or generating unacceptable operational effects, the scale of the development will create adverse effects on residential amenity which are significantly beyond what could be reasonably anticipated in this residential zone. In combination with the other healthcare facilities in the vicinity the cumulative effects will degrade the residential amenity appreciated by persons on adjacent properties, particularly for those at 146 Gillies Avenue. 9. Relevant statutory documents - s104(1)(b) The following are not applicable to the current resource consent application: No national environmental standards are relevant to this application (s104(1)(b)(i)) No other regulations apply to this application (s104(1)(b)(ii)) The NZCPS is not relevant to this application as the application is not near the coast. No national policy statements are relevant to this application. Sections 7 & 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA) (as a NZCPS) is not relevant to this application as the proposal has no impact on the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf (s104)(1)(b)(iv). Accordingly only the relevant statutory documents and other matters are considered below. Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Regional Policy Statement s104(1)(b)(v) Chapter B of the AUP(OP) sets out the regional policy statement. Part B2 sets out the objectives and policies for urban growth and form. The objectives provide for non-residential activities in residential areas to support the needs of people and communities. However, the Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 26 31

32 policies seek to require non-residential activities to be of a scale and form that are in keeping with the existing and planned built character roof the area. As discussed below, I consider the proposal is not in keeping with the planned built character of this residential zone whilst the proposed activity at a reduced intensity may be appropriate. Plan or Proposed Plan section 104(1)(b)(vi) The relevant plans are identified in section 4 above of this report, and the proposal is considered against the relevant provisions below. Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) The following is relevant for the district land use consents under the operative district plan. Relevant objectives, policies and assessment criteria Land disturbance (E12.2 & E12.3) the proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies as the earthworks will be undertaken in a manner which will ensure the adverse effects, such as stability and run-off, on people, property and the environment are avoided and mitigated. The proposal meets the assessment criteria for land disturbance (E12.8.2) as the erosion and sediment control measures and retaining wall design proposed will ensure stability and the safety of surrounding land, buildings and structures are maintained. The earthworks will not affect the volume or frequency of flooding as the overland flow path does not flow through the site. The earthworks are necessary in order to create the semi-basement car park and can be undertaken in a way which avoids and minimises adverse noise, vibration, odour, dust and traffic effects. Trees in roads (E17.2 & E17.3) the proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies as the replacement street trees will ensure that the quality and extent of tree cover on roads is maintained and will continue to contribute cultural, amenity, landscape and ecological values to the wider environment. The proposal meets the assessment criteria for the removal of trees in roads (E17.8.2) as the tree removal is required for the new vehicle crossings, the amenity and ecosystem services which the trees provide will be replaced by new natives. Based on the applicant s consultant arborist s assessment, the trees to be removed are in a poor condition, and therefore the replacement of new native trees will enhance the amenity and ecosystem services of the street tree planting and thus adequately compensate for the values that the existing trees provide. Noise and vibration (E25.2 & E25.3) the proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies as the rock breaking activity cannot be avoided for constructing the proposed basement, however the applicant has employed best practice principles to avoid, remedy and mitigate the actual and potential noise and vibration effects on persons and environment. The proposal meets the assessment criteria for construction noise and vibration (E25.8.2) as the rock breaking generating the adverse noise effects will be restricted to daytime hours and will be limited in duration for a maximum of 20 working days. The vibration standards are proposed to be complied with and further vibration mitigation measures will include correspondence with adjacent land and monitoring of adjacent land. Overall, the mitigation measures to minimise the noise and vibration generated are the best practical option. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 27 32

33 Transport (E27.2 & E27.3) the proposal is consistent with these objectives and policies as the proposal will not generate adverse effects on the transport network as there is sufficient parking provided for onsite to meet the demands of the activity, there is adequate loading and safe access is provided. The proposal meets the assessment criteria for development with fewer than the required minimum number of parking spaces (E27.8.2(5)) as the nature of the operation is restricted and the corresponding required parking spaces are provided on site to meet this actual demand, if limited on street parking is required this will not adversely affect the transport network or other users of the on-street parking resource due to the capacity available in the immediate environment. The proposal meets the assessment criteria for development with fewer than the required bicycle car parks (E25.8.2(6)) as there are four bicycle parks provided which considering the nature of the healthcare facility and the number of staff is considered to be sufficient. The proposal meets the assessment criteria for parking, loading and access which does not meet the standards (E25.8.2(8)) as the proposal will not affect the safe and efficient operation of the transport network as there is sufficient separation distance between crossings and sightlines to provide for vehicle and pedestrian safety. The effects on amenity from the additional vehicle crossings are mitigated by the proposed landscaping within the front yard of the site. The wider crossing will accommodate safer vehicle access for ingress and egress rather than a standard width. The manoeuvring within the basement is usable and the stacked spaces will be used by staff whom are regular users and will be familiar with the layout. Therefore, the onsite parking spaces will be utilised and on street parking will be avoided. Mixed Housing Suburban Zone (H4.2 & H4.3) this zone seeks to provide for residential intensification whilst retaining a suburban built character. Non-residential activities are provided for where they are compatible with the scale and intensity of the development of the zone. The following will assess the proposal with the objectives and policies of the zone: - The healthcare facility activity will support the existing healthcare business along Gillies Avenue, will provide for the social wellbeing of future patients and will provide for the economic wellbeing of future staff at the facility. - There is adequate parking, access, infrastructure and servicing of the new healthcare facility which will not compromise the values of the residential zone. - The operation of the healthcare facility will not generate adverse noise or lighting effects on residential amenity and in this respect is compatible with the residential zone. - Whilst the maximum impervious area is exceeded; there is sufficient onsite soakage to cater for the impervious area to avoid adverse effects on water quality and quantity. However, the exceedance of impervious and building coverage in combination with an exceedance of other standards suggests a scale which is an overdevelopment of the site. - The proposed landscaping across the site will ensure that landscaped amenity of the residential zone is provided for and even enhanced in comparison to the receiving environment. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 28 33

34 - The planned built character of the zone is predominantly for two storey buildings. The proposal will exceed this with two storeys and a semi-basement carpark, consequently infringing height. The existing boarding house on site currently infringes height, however in comparison to the surrounding environment and the planned built character, the building bulk is more than what could be anticipated. - There will be an increase in shading on adjacent properties as a result of the scale of the building. Whilst only being for a limited duration of the year (winter) the shading is over sensitive private open space areas which will reduce the amenity for persons on adjacent sites and is more than what could be reasonably anticipated from a compliant development. - The threshold for obtaining a restricted discretionary status is a healthcare facility with up to 200m 2 gross floor area. The proposed healthcare facility will be 947m 2. In this regard, the healthcare facility is at least four times greater in scale than what is anticipated as generally acceptable (subject to meeting certain assessment criteria) by the plan in this zone. Overall, whilst the proposed activity, that is the operation of a healthcare facility, is considered compatible, the size and scale of the building that is proposed to contain this activity is not considered to be within keeping of the neighbourhood s planned suburban built character. If the building was reduced in scale to what could be anticipated, then this would be more compatible with the residential zone. There are other zones which are considered to be more appropriate for a development of this scale, namely the Neighbourhood, Local or Town Centre Zones, the Mixed Use Zone and Special Purpose Zones. Further to the east of the subject site at the other end of Kipling Avenue, Manukau Road is zoned Mixed Use. This may be a more appropriate location for a development of this scale and intensity, whilst still being within close proximity to nearby healthcare facilities. Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives and policies of the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. Part H sets out the assessment criteria for healthcare facilities under 200m 2, whilst the development exceeds this GFA, the criteria provide a useful tool for assessment. - There will be adequate infrastructure and servicing of the proposed development. - The activity will avoid and mitigate high levels of non-residential traffic by providing adequate parking and access and due to the specialised operation of the healthcare facility. - The operation of the activity will not cause adverse noise effects and mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce adverse operation effects such as controlled hours and switching off generators outside of operation hours. The proposed signage lighting will comply with luminance levels and will not cause adverse glare effects. - Whilst the building has been designed to minimise adverse effects on residential amenity (i.e. modulation, material variation and landscape screening), the scale of the building is more than what could be reasonably anticipated in this residential zone (in terms of height, length and building coverage), this results in adverse bulk, dominance and shading effects which reduce the residential amenity for persons on adjacent sites and is therefore not compatible with the surrounding residential area. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 29 34

35 I consider that whilst some of the above criteria are met, the proposal overall would not met the assessment criteria for healthcare facilities in the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. Conclusion Overall, I consider the proposal is consistent with some of the objectives, policies and meets some of the assessment criteria for the AUP(OP), however, I consider the proposal is inconsistent with the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone because the intensity of the facility requires a scale of building which is not compatible with the planned suburban built character as it will adversely affect the residential amenity for persons on adjacent sites. 10. Any other matters - s104(1)(c) Section 104(1)(c) requires that any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application be considered. In this case the following matters are considered relevant. Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan is a high level document providing a 30 year strategic plan for Auckland. The direction that the Auckland Plan provides is reflected in the AUP(OP) and is a key tool for implementing these strategies. As above, I consider the proposal is not consistent with the Mixed Housing Urban Zone objectives and policies, and therefore would not be consistent with the intent which the Auckland Plan has for residential zones. Submissions All of the submissions received by the council in the processing of this application have been reviewed and considered in the overall assessment of effects in this report. The council s specialists have also reviewed the relevant submissions as required and incorporated comments into their assessments accordingly. Many of these submissions raised similar issues and have been dealt with generically in the body of this report. Those that have raised specific resource management matters and points of clarification have been specifically addressed in the assessment of actual and potential effects contained in section 8 above of this report. Local Board comments Comments were sought from the Albert/Eden Local Board on the 25 July No response was received. These comments were sought as part of the original application; no new feedback was sought as part of the revised application. Auckland Council Signage Bylaw 2016 The proposal includes signage as described in section 4.0 of the AEE. Pursuant to Clause 3(5)(b) of the Signage Bylaw 2015, the bylaw does not apply to comprehensive development. These signs do not require a signage bylaw exemption/approval and will be assessed as part of the resource consent. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 30 35

36 11. Other relevant RMA provisions Conditions of resource consents s108 Should the independent hearings commissioners decide to grant consent to the land use application, a set of recommended draft conditions of consent are contained in attachment 6. Lapsing of resource consents s125 Under s125, if a resource consent is not given effect to within five years of the date of the commencement (or any other time as specified) it lapses automatically, unless the council has granted an extension. In this case, five years is considered an appropriate period for the consent holder to implement the consent due to the nature and scale of the proposal in case of the consent being granted. Monitoring s35 Monitoring of consent conditions is required under section 35 of the Act. The council can charge the consent holder under section 36 in order to carry out the monitoring of this consent. The amount that can be charged is based on actual and reasonable costs associated with monitoring, i.e. site inspections, tests and administration. If the application is granted, I recommend an initial monitoring deposit fee of $900. Considering the scale and numerous monitoring components that would be required during construction, I consider this a reasonable initial deposit amount (if the total monitoring fees are less than $900, the balance is refunded). 12. Consideration of Part 2 (Purpose and Principles) Purpose Section 5 identifies the purpose of the RMA as the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment. Principles Section 6 sets out a number of matters of national importance which need to be recognised and provided for. These include the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, and the protection of historic heritage. Section 7 identifies a number of other matters to be given particular regard by the council in considering an application for resource consent. These include the efficient use of natural and physical resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. Section 8 requires the council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Assessment In its current form, I am of the opinion that the proposal will not achieve the purpose of the RMA, because the development will result in reduced residential amenity for persons on adjacent Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 31 36

37 sites, therefore not providing for their social wellbeing. The healthcare facility could be better suited in another location or be at a reduced scale to avoid and reduce the adverse effects on the residential amenity for these adjacent persons. Whilst there will be a wider social benefit for the future patients of the healthcare facility, I do not consider the proposal in its current form to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. In my opinion, Section 6 of the RMA is not relevant as there are no matters of national importance such as outstanding natural features or landscapes, vegetation or historic heritage which would be affected by the proposal. In terms of Section 7, the proposal would be an efficient use of the subject site by maximising the development potential. However, the scale of the development will not maintain or enhance the amenity values of adjacent sites. The proposal is not considered to be contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and iwi have not raised any concerns with the proposal. 13. Conclusion Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will create an additional healthcare facility for wider public benefit and in a location near other healthcare facilities with a similar use, the scale of the development will generate adverse effects on residential amenity for persons, particularly for those on adjacent sites. The proposal is consistent with some of the objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the AUP (OP), however due to the scale of the development the proposal is not compatible with the neighbourhood character of the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone, and hence overall does not provide for the social wellbeing of persons on adjacent sites and will not achieve the purpose of the RMA. 14. Recommendation Recommendation on the late submission Under s37 and s37a of the RMA I recommend that the following late submission is accepted: Andrew C R Bowker, 148 Gilles Avenue, Epsom The reason for this recommendation is: The submission is only one day late and has not raised any new issues which other submitters had not raised. The late submission has not caused unreasonable delay in the processing of this application and the applicant has not objected to the acceptance of the submission. Recommendation on the application for resource consent Subject to new or contrary evidence being presented at the hearing, I recommend that under sections 104, 104B and 108, consent is refused. The reasons for this recommendation are: The streetscape amenity, transport, infrastructure capacity, groundwater, flooding, noise and vibration and construction effects are considered to be Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 32 37

38 acceptable. The activity of a healthcare facility is acceptable in general, however the intensity of the activity as proposed and the resultant scale and bulk of the building form, and associated cumulative effects on the residential amenity for adjacent persons, is not acceptable. The proposal is consistent with the objectives, policies and assessment criteria for land disturbance, trees in roads, noise and vibration and transport. However, I consider the proposal in its current form overall to be inconsistent with the Mixed Housing Suburban Zone. Although this zone provides for non-residential activities where they are compatible with the planned built character, in my opinion the proposal in its current form is not compatible. Whilst providing for the social and economic wellbeing for future patients and the applicant, the social wellbeing for adjacent residents is not sufficiently avoided, mitigated or remedied and therefore overall the proposal does not achieve the purpose of the RMA. In my opinion, the proposed intensity and resultant scale of the building is inappropriate in this location. If the scale of the building was reduced in size, the healthcare facility may be appropriate and more compatible with residential amenity expected in this zone. To assist the independent hearing commissioners if it is determined on the evidence to grant consent subject to conditions, draft recommended conditions have been included at attachment 6. Planner s report to the Independent Hearing Commissioners Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 Page 33 38

39 ATTACHMENT 1: Application documents & drawings Application No: R/LUC/2016/2962/1 39

40 40

41 Kipling House Limited Land use consent for the construction and operation of new healthcare facility including demolition of the existing building 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Revision History Date Issue Description 07/07/ Draft for internal review 11/07/ Final for Lodgement 15/11/16 3 AUP - Operative in Part Lodgement 41

42 CONTENTS 1.0 THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS INTRODUCTION Overview BACKGROUND SITE CONTEXT Site Description Surrounding Locality PROPOSAL RULES ASSESSMENT auckland unitary plan (operative in part) REASONS FOR THE APPLICATION AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN (OPERATIVE IN PART) ASSESSMENT (SECTION 104) Statutory Matters Weighting of Proposed Plan Changes: Auckland Council Unitary Plan Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (section 104(1)(a)) District Plan and any Relevant Statutory Documents (section 104(1)(b)) Relevant Rules and Assessment Criteria Summary Part 2 Matters OTHER MATTERS (SECTION 104(1)(C)) CONCLUSION Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November 2016 i Reviewed by Karl Cook 42

43 APPENDICES: Appendix 1: Locality Diagram Appendix 2: Certificate of Title Appendix 3: Architectural Drawings Appendix 4: Design Statement Appendix 5: Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix 6: Arborist Report Appendix 7: Acoustic Report Appendix 8: Overland Flow Path Overview Appendix 9: Geotechnical Report Appendix 10: Stormwater Drainage & Public Sanitary Sewer Overview Appendix 11: Pre-application Meeting Minutes Appendix 12: Asset Owner Approval from Auckland Council Parks Appendix 13: Written approval of affected persons 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November 2016 ii Reviewed by Karl Cook 43

44 1.0 THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY DETAILS To: Site Address: Applicant's Name: Address for Service Auckland Council 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom Kipling House Limited Barker & Associates Ltd PO Box 1986 Shortland Street Auckland 1140 Attention: Mary Wong / Karl Cook Legal Description: Lot 1 DP Site Area: Site Owner: Operative Plan: Zoning: 1249sqm Kipling House Limited Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part Mixed Housing Suburban Overlays: Natural Heritage: Regionally Significant Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Area - W26, Mt Wellington. Natural Resource: Quality Sensitive Aquifer - Management Areas Auckland Isthmus Volcanic. Designations/Limitations: Road Classification: None applicable Kipling Avenue - Local Road Locality diagram: Refer to attached map at Appendix 1 Brief description of proposal: Summary of reasons for consent: The construction and operation of a new healthcare facility on a residential zoned site involving the demolition of the existing building on site, site and tree works and provisions for car parking and servicing. Refer to section 5.0 of this report. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 44

45 We attach an assessment of environmental effects that corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the proposed activity may have on the environment. Authors Mary Wong / Karl Cook Planner / Director Barker & Associates Ltd Date: 15 November Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 45

46 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 OVERVIEW This report has been prepared in support of a resource consent application by Kipling House Limited for the construction and operation of a new specialised healthcare facility at 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom (the site ). The proposed facility is dedicated to screening for and prevention of bowel cancer through colonoscopy and polyp removal. The service will be of benefit to the population-at- large but is particularly well suited to the subject site given its central location to other healthcare facilities in the wider Epsom area and Auckland City Hospital and also to the adjacent Endoscopy Auckland facility on Gillies Avenue. Construction of the facility requires the demolition of the existing building on site that currently operates as a boarding house. Parking will be provided in a semi basement area beneath the new building with servicing from the driveway. Resource consent is required in relation to a range of matters including exceedances of the relevant construction noise standards resulting from the approximately two-week rock breaking phase of construction. The various aspects of the project and the consents required under the Auckland Unitary Plan gives rise to specific resource management issues which are assessed in detail within the body of this report and the appended supporting expert assessments. Overall the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor and acceptable in nature. This Assessment of Environmental Effects ( AEE ) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 88 of and Schedule 4 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act ) and is intended to provide the information necessary for a full understanding of the activity for which consent is sought and any actual or potential effects the proposal may have on the environment. 2.2 BACKGROUND An application for resource consent (Council ref: R/LUC/2016/2962) for this same development was lodged on 11 July 2016 with supporting expert assessments, referred to hereafter as the first application. At the time of the preparation and lodgement of that application, the proposal required various consents under the Auckland Council District Plan - Isthmus Section 1999 (the Isthmus District Plan ) and those rules of the notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the PAUP ) which had immediate legal effect under the Act. Over the course of processing the application, further information including an amended design was provided to Council in response to a request pursuant to 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 46

47 section 92 of the Act. In addition to those amendments to the proposal the first application was revised in relation to the decisions version of the PAUP (the PAUP - Decisions Version ) was released on 19 August Because all rules have immediate legal effect under the PAUP Decisions Version, the application was accordingly updated to seek the consents required in addition to when the first application was lodged. The Auckland Unitary Plan was made operative in part on 15 November None of the Auckland Unitary Plan rules under which the healthcare facility proposal requires consent are subject to appeal, as explained below. All the relevant rules were therefore made operative on 15 November 2016 As such, this application seeks the necessary consents under the Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part ( AUP - Operative in Part ). This is for the exact same development and all other associated enabling works as the first application. There are no changes to the scope of the proposal for the first application, in relation to which the Council made the limited notification decision on 27 October However, it is noted that while the first application was overall a non-complying activity under the Isthmus District Plan, it is now overall a discretionary activity under the AUP - Operative in Part. This is because non-compliance with the construction noise standards from rock breaking activities over a two week period was a non-complying activity under the Isthmus District Plan, whereas it is now a restricted discretionary activity under the AUP - Operative in Part. 3.0 SITE CONTEXT 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located on the southern side of Kipling Avenue and has a rectangular shaped configuration. It comprises a net site area of 1249m 2 held in a fee simple estate. Occupying the site is a sizeable and highly modified two storey weatherboard building generally positioned in the middle of the site. The existing building operates as a boarding house providing medium to long-term accommodation and operates under the name Kipling House. Property file records indicate that the boarding house was first established on site in the late 1960s and was operating by Today, we understand that there are a total of 27 bedrooms within the building. Vehicular access to the site is provided by an 8.0m wide vehicle crossing at the very north-eastern corner of the site. A driveway then extends midway along the 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 47

48 eastern boundary of the site before terminating. It does not connect to any parking at the rear of the site. The area in front of the building functions as an unmarked car parking area which can accommodate up to four cars in a 90 o degree angle configuration. The area to the rear of the building comprises grassed permeable surfaces, the service court of the boarding house, and a low level retaining wall that dissects the yard across the south-western boundaries of the site. A covered timber walkway also extends from the rear door of the boarding house, providing a pedestrian connection to the adjoining property along the southern boundary of the site by way of a gate in the fence. Figure 1: Locality Plan of subject site. Topography wise, the site slopes down gently in the eastern direction. The site is presented as a modified urban landform with no distinguishing natural features present. There are two mature specimen trees at the rear of the site which are not protected in terms of scheduling or general tree protection rules under the AUP- Operative in Part. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 48

49 The Council s GIS viewer indicates the presence of an overland flow path (OLFP) which extends across the front of the site from the western to eastern boundary. The exact location and trajectory of this OLFP has been investigated by Beca and it has determined that the location of this OLFP is on adjacent properties (146 and 148 Gillies Avenue) to the rear and does not extend to the subject site at all. 3.2 SURROUNDING LOCALITY Adjoining the eastern boundary of the site at 20 Kipling Avenue is a property containing three detached two storey residential dwellings of a modern architectural form. An approximately 3.0m-wide driveway providing for the necessary legal road access and on site vehicle manoeuvring immediately adjoins the common boundary on the western side of this adjacent site. The private outdoor living space for each of these three units is located along the eastern side of each of the dwellings. Adjoining the western boundary of the site is 1/24 and 2/24 Kipling Avenue which comprises of two attached dwellings and 146 Gillies Avenue comprising multiple residential units/flats on one site. Adjoining the southern boundary of the site at 148 Gillies Avenue is an existing healthcare facility providing endoscopy services within a single building which occupies an approximately 40% footprint of its site. The prevailing land use within the surrounding environment is predominantly residential activity, comprising of mainly single and two storey dwellings. The dwellings along Kipling Avenue are all zoned Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban under the Auckland Unitary Plan and are not located within a special character area. This is reflected in the streetscape character which presents a mix of architectural forms from modern dwellings to pre-war villas. The wider Epsom area also contains various healthcare facilities, including several adjacent to the district arterial road, Gillies Avenue. The nearest healthcare facilities in relation to the subject site are illustrated in the design statement attached as Appendix 4. Kipling Avenue is a local road and it is bound by two district arterial roads being Gillies Avenue to the west and Manukau Road to the east. It is a two-lane carriageway approximately 9.8m in width with opposing lanes in each direction and provides for unrestricted on-street parking on each side of the road. 4.0 PROPOSAL This application seeks resource consent to construct and operate a new purposebuilt healthcare facility providing for flexible endoscopy (including gastroscopy and 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 49

50 colonoscopy) and laparoscopic surgical services. The vision for this proposal is to develop a specialised endoscopy healthcare facility whereby a large part of the practice is dedicated to the screening and prevention of bowel cancer through colonoscopy and polyp removal. The proposed development and all other facilitating works are shown on the set of drawings in Appendix 3. By way of the summary, the proposal involves the following: Demolition of Existing Building To facilitate the construction of the new, purpose-built healthcare facility the proposal requires the demolition of the existing villa on site. New Healthcare Building The existing villa on site will be replaced with a new healthcare facility with a generous front yard and thus positioned toward the rear of the site. The new building will consist of a semi-basement carpark with the healthcare facility directly above in two levels, totalling a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 947m 2. The ground level of the building will comprise four endoscopy procedure rooms extending down the central core of the building. These rooms range between 24m 2 to 39m 2 in size and will be where surgical procedures are carried out within the building. A nurse station and the reception/waiting area will also be located on this level. The first floor of the building will mainly contain staff and support facilities. This includes the storage of linen and equipment, changing rooms, an office and staffroom with an outdoor deck overlooking the driveway and Kipling Avenue beyond this. Pedestrian entry to this new facility is provided directly from Kipling Avenue via a ramp leading to the reception area of the ground floor, or via a lift from within the semi-basement carpark. Materiality of the new building will include a combination of stained cedar weatherboard, terracotta rain screen cladding and planting green walls. Further details on the layout and form of the proposed building are attached in Appendix 3 and 4. Operational Details The proposed days and hours of operation for this healthcare facility are as follows: 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 50

51 Monday to Friday - 7:30am to 6:30pm Saturday - 8:00am to 12:00pm Sunday - Closed Staffing wise, the facility will be operated by a total of 18 staff comprising secretarial/admin staff, nurses/technicians and consulting medical specialists. This is based on 3-4 staff per theatre and two administration staff. For endoscopy patients, the typical length of stay on site will be an hour and a half or three hours for day surgery patients. The consultation and examining of patients does not involve any procedures and the typical length of stay on site is approximately 30 minutes. In most cases, patients will not be seen and operated/scoped on the same day. It is anticipated that 25 or less procedures will be carried out per day (i.e. approximately six per room). There will be opportunities for ambulatory patients to be dropped off at this facility for treatment; however this would be an infrequent and rare occurrence. No overnight stay will be provided for patients on site. Access and Parking Vehicular access to the site will be provided by a new 6.0m-wide vehicle crossing centrally positioned along the northern boundary of the site. The crossing at the north-eastern corner of the site will be shifted 1m to the west of this boundary to create a loading bay dedicated for gas delivery because this cannot be loaded on the slope of the ramp down to the basement carpark for health and safety reasons. A 6.0m-wide ramp will then provide vehicular ingress and egress to the semibasement carpark containing a total of 26 spaces. Of these 26 spaces, 22 will be located on car stackers and will be allocated for staff use. One mobility space will be provided in the basement carpark and the remaining spaces will be for visitor use. No dedicated loading or ambulance bay will be provided on site. All other normal loading and servicing of this facility (except gas delivery) will be carried out at the entrance into the basement carpark, as shown on sheet RC-102 in Appendix 3. Vegetation Removal To facilitate construction of this new healthcare facility all existing vegetation on site, including any mature specimen trees, will be removed. The vegetation on site is not protected under the Unitary Plan. The two London plane trees on the road reserve immediately adjacent to the frontage of the site are to be removed in order to facilitate construction of the new vehicle crossing and to provide access into the basement car park. Asset owner 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 51

52 approval for removal of these trees has been obtained (refer correspondence in Appendix 12). Earthworks Earthworks will be required across the entire site to facilitate construction of the new building. This will involve excavating 1,596m 3 of material to a maximum excavation of depth of 3.7m to achieve the necessary finished floor levels (FFL) for the parking in the basement carpark. Geotechnical investigations indicate that the site is underlain by basalt lava rock and as such, the excavations proposed will involve some rock breaking. Investigations indicate that 75% of the excavation will be highly fractured rock or loose scoria gravel which can be removed without rock breaking. The volume of strong basalt rock to be excavation is expected to be in the range of 585m 3-685m 3 which will require rock breaking equipment to remove. Further information on the geology of the site can be found in the geotechnical report attached as Appendix 9. Infrastructure / Servicing There is no public piped stormwater reticulation servicing the site. As such, it is proposed to provide a new stormwater drainage system on site to discharge stormwater runoff from the development. Stormwater will be collected and piped to a new soak hole on site which will be drilled into the underlying basalt layers of the site. Soakage testing on site has confirmed that this method of stormwater discharge is feasible. All new impervious area will be clear water from the roof and as such, stormwater quality treatment is not required. In terms of wastewater, the existing public wastewater line dissecting through the south-western corner of the site will need to be diverted around the new building footprint to enable construction of the semi-basement carpark and for future maintenance purposes. A new pipe will be installed along the western boundary of the site at the very rear which would then connect to the manhole at 148 Gillies Avenue. Further information on servicing of the site can be found in Appendix 10. Signage One free-standing sign measuring 2.32m high by 1.2m wide is proposed at the north-western side of the site between the ramps to the basement carpark and to the main pedestrian entry. There will be content (yet to be developed) on both sides of this sign which will be limited to the name of the healthcare facility, 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 52

53 address and possibly a small graphic representative of the facility. This sign will not be illuminated or flashing. One sign is proposed on the building façade at ground level measuring 3.2m high by 3.24m wide. Content is still to be developed but will most likely contain information as mentioned above. This sign will not be illuminated or flashing. The sign will only be dimly up-lit at the base and will not cause any glare. 5.0 RULES ASSESSMENT 5.1 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN (OPERATIVE IN PART) The site is zoned Residential Mixed Housing Suburban ( MHS ) under the AUP- OiP. The following table provides an assessment of the proposal against relevant provisions of this Plan. Rule Compliance Non Compliance Chapter D Overlays D14.4.1(A1) - Volcanic viewshafts and height sensitive area overlays D14.4.1(A11) Buildings in a height sensitive area Complies - the new building will be 9.9m high above NGL at the highest point and will not intrude into the W26 Mt Wellington Volcanic viewshaft. N/A - the site is not located within the height sensitive area overlay. Chapter E Auckland-wide rules E8.4.1(A8) - Stormwater discharge and diversion Complies - the diversion and discharge of SW runoff from impervious areas up to 1,000m 2 within an urban area where a connection to a SW network is not possible, complying with standard E8.6.1 is permitted. The total impervious area proposed is 787.4m 2, the site is not connected to the SW network and standards under E8.6.1 will be met. Permitted activity. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 53

54 E12.4.1(A5)(A9) - Land disturbance district E17.4.1(A10) - Trees in roads E Signs E Maximum noise levels in residential zones E Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to noise in all zones, except the City Centre and Metro Centre zone (A53) Comprehensive development signage is a restricted discretionary activity. However, the comment under Relationship to signage bylaws states signs that are permitted under the signage bylaw 1 are not subject to provisions of the Plan. Part 3 Clause 5(b) of the bylaw states the bylaw does not apply to publicly visible comprehensive development signage 2. Accordingly, consent is not considered to be required under this rule. Will comply - refer to assessment in section 3.0 of the acoustic report in Appendix m 3 of earthworks over an area of approximately 1200m 2 is proposed to facilitate construction of the new building. Restricted discretionary activity. The removal of any tree greater than 4m in height or greater than 400mm in girth is a restricted discretionary activity. The two London plane trees in the road reserve to be removed meet the girth criteria. Section of the acoustic report in Appendix 3 predicts that construction noise levels during the rock breaking period to facilitate construction of the basement carpark will 1 Auckland Council Signage Bylaw Comprehensive Development Signage is defined under the bylaw as signage relating to a new building or the alteration of an existing building where the building or alteration requires a resource consent and/or building work to the value of at least $100,000, assessed at the time a building consent application is lodged with the council. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 54

55 E (1)(a) Vibration E Transport Activity Table E27.6.1(2)(b) Trip generation E (T72) - Parking Minimum 1 per 20m 2 No maximum. E27.6.2(10) Mobility Parking Will comply - refer to section of the acoustic report in Appendix 3. Complies - no consents required Trip generation standards in clause E27.6.1(1) where development is being undertaken in accordance with a consent. Healthcare facilities in the MHS zone >200m 2 is not a controlled or restricted discretionary activity, clause E27.6.1(1)(b) does not apply. Permitted activity 3. exceed the construction noise levels set out in the table. Pursuant to rule E25.4.1(A2) activities that do not comply with a permitted standard is a restricted discretionary activity. The GFA of the proposed building is 947m 2 (excluding the basement carpark). Total parking required is (47) spaces, and 25 spaces is provided within the basement carpark. Parking shortfall is 21 spaces. Restricted discretionary activity. Where parking is provided on site this is required to meet NZS: New Zealand Standard for Design for Access and Mobility - Buildings and Associated Facilities. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 55

56 In accordance with this standard, two mobility spaces are required and only one is provided within the basement carpark. E (T98) Required bicycle parking Visitor - 1 space plus 1 space per 10 FTE practitioners Secure - 1 per 8 FTE employees E (T112) All other activities with a GFA up to 5000m 2 - no loading required. E (T117) Parking and manoeuvring dimensions E Loading space dimensions E (1) Access and manoeuvring E (1) Reverse manoeuvring Complies - GFA of the building is 947m 2 so no loading space is required. Complies - the 90 0 parking spaces in the basement are 2.6m by 5.0m for staff and visitors. Complies - the loading provided is 4.0m by 9.0m where a loading bay of 3.5m by 8.0 is required. Complies - all vehicles parked inside the basement carpark will be able to manoeuvre on site and exit in a forward Restricted discretionary activity. Total staff - 18 Visitor spaces required - 3 Secure spaces required (2) Total required = 5 Four bicycle parks are provided on the first floor of the building, thereby generating a shortfall of one space. Restricted discretionary activity. Manoeuvring depth required is 7.0m whereas a depth of 6.2m is provided. Restricted discretionary activity. The parking spaces within the basement carpark do not comply with the 85 th percentile car tracking curve. Restricted discretionary activity. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 56

57 E (b) Vertical clearance E (4) Formation and gradient E Vehicle access restrictions E (T146) Maximum number of vehicle crossings and separation distance E (T151) Vehicle crossing and widths E (1)(3) manouevre. Kipling Avenue is not defined as an arterial road in the PAUP and the site is not subject to the vehicle access restriction control. Complies - a vertical clearance of 2.3m is achieved in the basement carpark for a nonresidential activity. Complies - all parking spaces provided with the basement will be level. N/A - the site is not subject to this control Complies - the vehicle crossing providing access to the basement carpark is 6.0m at the site boundary which complies with the minimum and maximum requirements where it provides for two-way movements and serves more than 10 parking spaces. Complies - the gradient of the ramp down into the basement carpark is 1:8. Does not comply with rule E (c) because a mobility space is provided within the basement carpark. Where access or accessible parking for people with disabilities is provided, a vertical clearance of 2.5m is required. Restricted discretionary activity. The site has a road frontage of 23.16m and is proposed to be served with two crossings. The separation distance between the proposed crossings 3.8m where a minimum of 6m is required. Restricted discretionary activity. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 57

58 A gradient of 1:20 is achieved for the safety platform for a depth of 6m for nonresidential activities. E Natural Hazards and Flooding Complies the site is not subject to any flood hazards and the engineering investigations confirm the OLFP on 146 and 148 Gillies Avenue does not extend to the site. Permitted activity. Chapter H Zones (Mixed Housing Suburban) H Activity Table H4.6.4 Building height - 8m permitted maximum (A29) Demolition of buildings is a permitted activity. (A25) Healthcare facilities greater than 200m 2 GFA per site is a discretionary activity. (A33) Development which does not comply with HIRB is a restricted discretionary activity. (A34) New buildings have the same activity status as the land use activity that the new building is designed to accommodate. The construction of the new healthcare building is a discretionary activity. The building infringes height limit by a maximum vertical height of 1.9m over a maximum horizontal length of 22m. (Refer sheets RC111 & RC112 in Appendix 1) Point C at the western Restricted discretionary activity. H4.6.5 HIRB - 2.5m plus 45 o boundary by a maximum vertical height of 3.6m over a maximum 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 58

59 H4.6.6 Alternative HIRB N/A horizontal length of 19.73m. Point E at the southern boundary by a maximum vertical height of 5.94m over a maximum horizontal length of 8.32m. Restricted discretionary activity. H4.6.7 Yards - 3m front yard - 1m side & rear yard H4.6.8 Impervious Area - maximum 60% H4.6.9 Building coverage - maximum 40% H Landscaped area - minimum 40% - 50% of front yard shall be landscaped H Outlook Space H Daylight Complies - minimum setbacks for the front and side yards is achieved. N/A to proposal because the healthcare facility does not involve overnight stay 6. N/A to activity proposed. The building will be setback 260mm from the rear boundary. Restricted discretionary activity. Impervious area proposed is 64.7% or 787.4m 2. Restricted discretionary activity. Building coverage 5 proposed is 43.7% or 524.4m 2. Restricted discretionary activity. Landscaped area proposed is 35.3% or 440.9%. 41.2% or 69.4m 2 of the 3.0m front yard will comprise landscaped surfaces. Restricted discretionary activity. 5 The rainwater tank will be no more than 1m high above ground level so will not be deemed a building or contribute to building coverage on site. 6 The definition of habitable room only includes healthcare facilities where this involves overnight stay facility. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 59

60 H Outdoor living space H Front, side and rear walls N/A to activity proposed Complies - No fencing proposed along front boundary of the site. - The permanent acoustic fence proposed along the eastern and western boundaries of the site will not be more than 2m high. 6.0 REASONS WHY RESOURCE CONSENT IS REQUIRED 6.1 AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN - OPERATIVE IN PART Resource consent is required for the following reasons: Rule E12.4.1(A5)(A9) To undertake approximately 1,596m 3 of earthworks over an area of 1,200m 2 to facilitate construction of the proposed building, as a restricted discretionary activity on a residential zoned site. Rule (A10) To remove two London plane trees in the road reserve which have a girth greater than 400mm, as a restricted discretionary activity. Rule E (1) The two-week rock breaking period during the earthworks phase of construction will not comply with the permitted construction noise standards. Pursuant to rule E25.4.1(A2) this is a restricted discretionary activity. E (T72) The 947m 2 GFA of proposed building for healthcare purposes requires a minimum of 47 parking spaces to be provided on-site and only 26 spaces are provided within the basement carpark on-site. Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) this shortfall of 21 spaces is a restricted discretionary activity. E27.6.2(10) To provide one mobility space within the basement carpark on site where a minimum of two spaces is required under NZS: Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) this shortfall of one space is a restricted discretionary activity. Rule E (T98) The proposal requires a total of 5 bicycle parks to be provided on site for visitor and secure use and only 4 are provided on the first 7 New Zealand Standard for Design for Access and Mobility - Buildings and Associated Facilities. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 60

61 floor of the building. Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) this shortfall of one space is a restricted discretionary activity. E (T117) A manoeuvring depth of 7.0m is required for vehicles in the basement carpark and a depth of 6.2m will be achieved. Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) non-compliance with this standard is a restricted discretionary activity. E (1) - The parking spaces within the basement carpark do not comply with the 85 th percentile car tracking curve. Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) noncompliance with this standard is a restricted discretionary activity. E (b) A vertical clearance height of 2.5m is required for the basement carpark because it will contain one mobility parking space. A vertical clearance height of 2.3m will be achieved. Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) non-compliance with this standard is a restricted discretionary activity. E (T146) The separation distance between the two vehicle crossings serving the site is 3.8m where a minimum of 6m is required. Further, the site has road frontage of less than 25m at 23.16m and it is proposed to be served by two crossings. Pursuant to rule E27.4.1(A2) non-compliance with these standards is a restricted discretionary activity. H4.4.1(A25) Healthcare facilities greater than 200m 2 GFA per site in the MHS zone is a discretionary activity. H4.4.1(A33) - New buildings have the same activity status as the land use activity that the new building is designed to accommodate. Accordingly, the construction of the new healthcare building is a discretionary activity. H The proposed building exceeds the 8m height limit by a maximum vertical height of 1.9m over a maximum horizontal length of 22m. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to C1.9. H4.6.5 The proposed building will infringe the 2.5m and 45 0 height in relation to boundary standard by the following, as a restricted discretionary pursuant to rule C1.9. o Western boundary maximum vertical height of 3.6m over a maximum horizontal length of 19.73m. o Southern boundary maximum vertical height of 5.94m over a maximum horizontal length of 8.32m. H4.6.7 The building will be setback 260mm from the southern rear boundary where a minimum rear yard setback of 1m is required. The 2.3m high by 1.2m 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 61

62 wide free standing is also deemed to a building 8 and this will be located within the 3m front yard of the site. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to rule C1.9. H4.6.8 The total impervious area proposed is 64.7% or 787.4m 2 where a maximum of 60% or 749.4m 2 is permitted. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to rule C1.9. H4.6.9 The total building coverage proposed is 43.7% or 524.4m 2 where a maximum of 40% or 499.6m 2 is permitted. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to rule C1.9. H The total landscaped area proposed on site is 35.3% or 440.9m 2 where a minimum of 40% or 499.6m 2 is required. Further, only 41.2% or 69.4m 2 of the 3m front yard will comprise of landscaped surfaces where 50% of this is required to be landscaped. This is a restricted discretionary activity pursuant to rule C1.9. Overall, this application is a discretionary activity under the Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part. 7.0 ASSESSMENT (SECTION 104) 7.1 STATUTORY MATTERS Subject to Part 2 of the Act, when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received, a council must, in accordance with section 104(1) of the Act have regard to: Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; Any relevant provisions of a national environmental standard, other regulations, national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement, a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; a plan or proposed plan; and Any other matter a council considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. As a discretionary activity, section 104B of the Act states that a council: (a) May grant or refuse the application; and (b) If it grants the application, may impose conditions under section The list exclusions in the definition of building under the AUP-OiP has been appealed. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 62

63 Permitted baseline and existing environment There are no known approved but unimplemented resource consents for the site. The existing environment contains a boarding house with up to 27 bedrooms established in the 1970s that is managed by two staff. Assuming an occupancy of two people per room along with the two staff, this generated a car parking requirement of 20 spaces on site under the previous Isthmus District Plan standards. As noted earlier, the area in front of the existing building on site can only accommodate up to four parking spaces. Accordingly, the existing environment contains a car parking shortfall of up to approximately 16 spaces. The drawings in Appendix 3 show the existing and proposed buildings on the site, including those parts of the building that exceed the maximum height and the BIRB controls of the previous Isthmus District Plan at the western and eastern boundaries. The existing building generates a level of dominance and shading to the neighbouring properties in its current built form. Both of these aspects have formed part of the existing environment for many years and regard should be afforded to this in the consideration and assessment of adverse effects. Healthcare services in the MHS zone are provided for as a discretionary activity and as such there are no adverse effects on the environment in relation to this activity which can be discounted. Notwithstanding this, where proposed building complies with the applicable standards for the MHS zone this is considered relevant to the anticipated outcomes for this site and associated effects on the environment. Overall, the permitted baseline and existing environment that can be applied to the assessment of this application includes the built form of the existing building on site, the existing parking shortfall associated with the intensity of the boarding house activity and the fact that the building has a long history of use for nonstandard residential purposes. Trade Competition The wider Epsom area contains several other healthcare facilities. Therefore, the effects of trade competition will be disregarded. Persons who have given written approval Written approval has been obtained from the owners of the following properties, with the appropriate Council forms completed and attached as Appendix Gillies Avenue 1/24 and 2/24 Kipling Avenue 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 63

64 For the purposes of assessment, the effects on person who have given written approval to this application are disregarded. 7.2 AUCKLAND COUNCIL UNITARY PLAN NOW OPERATIVE Auckland Council made the Auckland Unitary Plan operative in part as at 15 November At this point, all corresponding previous rules under the legacy plans, including the Isthmus District Plan, became inoperative. The only parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that were not made operative are those parts subject to appeals. There are no Auckland Unitary Plan rules under which the proposed healthcare facility requires resource consent that are subject to appeal, therefore all relevant rules became operative (and previous rules inoperative) as at 15 November This is confirmed as follows. The MHS zoning of the site is not subject to appeal, nor is the discretionary activity status of healthcare facilities in this zone. The only appeals that are relevant in respect of provisions in the MHS zone relate to the activity status based on the number of dwellings to be constructed, the alternative height in relation to boundary control, and fence heights. There is also an appeal in relation to the exclusions under the height definition. This application is for a non-residential activity (ie it does not derive its activity status based on the number of dwellings to be constructed), the proposed building exceeds the height limit for the zone and therefore does not rely upon the alternative height in relation to boundary control, and there is no proposal to exceed the permitted fence heights. All other standards for the MHS zone relevant to this application are not subject to appeal so must be treated as operative. Accordingly, the Isthmus District Plan provisions no longer apply and the application can be wholly assessed against the relevant Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part provisions only. It is also our understanding that all higher-order objectives and policies are not subject to appeal and have, accordingly, been made operative in the Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part as at 15 November Notwithstanding, for completeness we record that the first application was assessed against the relevant objectives, policies and other applicable provisions of the Isthmus District Plan, which seek similar outcomes to the AUP- Operative in Part. This application is 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 64

65 therefore considered to be in accordance with those provisions of the Isthmus District Plan. 7.3 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT (SECTION 104(1)(a)) Having regard to the actual and potential effects on the environment of the activity resulting from the proposal, the following assessment of effects is made: Positive effects The positive effects from this proposal will be significant. The proponent, a senior surgeon and endoscopist in the Auckland region, has provided the following commentary in relation to this proposal. The background is that this is mainly planned as an endoscopy unit with a large part of the work dedicated to screening for and prevention of bowel cancer through colonoscopy and polyp removal. At present there are 3,000 new bowel cancers a year in New Zealand and half of patients will die despite treatment. The pilot study at the Waitemata DHB has shown that adequate screening results in saved lives through detection of early cancers which are curable and finding and removing large dangerous polyps which would otherwise progress to cancers. It is estimated that in the first two years of the Waitemata pilot between lives have been saved. It is perceived that there will be greater need for colonoscopy with increased public awareness of bowel cancer and with the aging population as the baby boomers move in to the high risk age group. We consider that the proposal will generate significant positive effects on the environment, which includes people, in that it would provide a healthcare service that enables screening for, the early detection and the prevention of bowel cancer. Further, by virtue of its location - centrally to healthcare facilities in the Epsom area and to the adjoining site in particular - this proposal is well suited to the subject property. In our view, this is a significant positive effect on the environment as it would provide an important and necessary healthcare service to the community. Further, the proposal will result in the removal of an existing building that due to prior modifications has little architectural or character value and given its condition has passed its useful life. A new, high-quality building will replace it and has been architecturally designed to respond to the mixed character of the locality. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 65

66 7.3.2 Demolition and Construction Activity Effects Earthworks The existing building on site will be demolished and the site will then be earthworked to achieve the necessary finished floor levels for the basement carpark and finished gradients on site. Given the extent of development proposed, earthworks is expected to be undertaken across the site over an area of approximately 1,200m 2, including up to 1,596m 3 of excavated material. To avoid or mitigate any silt and sediment runoff effects, the implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan is proposed. Sediment control methodologies will include those in accordance with TP90 such as silt fencing along the eastern downslopes of the site, a stabilised construction entrance and the path for clean water diversions on site. Any dust effects generated during the construction phases will be appropriately managed by spraying the site where necessary to suppress any dust particles. Accordingly, it is considered that any silt and sediment runoff effects on the environment will be avoided or mitigated to be less than minor. It is noted that any adverse sedimentation effects will only be temporary over the duration of construction for this project. Following the completion of construction, the site will be permanently restabilised against erosion either by re-landscaping of the site or by the building platform itself. Whilst the landform of the site will be altered as a result of the earthworks proposed, this is considered to be an appropriate outcome given that the site is located in a highly modified urban setting and it does not present any significant natural landscape features. Modification to the landform of the site is therefore considered to be appropriate and any adverse effects will be minor. Construction noise and vibration The proposed building is of a domestic scale overall and will involve similar construction-related effects to a residential development that would be anticipated on a site of this scale. Due to the volcanic profile of land within the Auckland isthmus area, it is not uncommon for developments of this nature and scale to involve rock breaking during the construction phase to achieve the necessary finished gradients and floor levels. The geotechnical report in Appendix 9 confirms the site is underlain with basalt rock and given the 3.7m excavation depth (maximum) proposed to facilitate construction of the semi-basement carpark, rock breaking into strong basalt rock will be required. Of the total volume of earthworks required (1,596m 3 ), it is anticipated that between m 3 of this will be strong basalt rock and will require rocking breaking equipment to remove. This is particularly at the south- 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 66

67 western corner of the site where geotechnical investigations on site reveal strong basalt rock is present above RL 74m. The acoustic report in Appendix 7 is based on the duration to remove this volume of strong basalt rock taking approximately calendar days to complete. The contractor engaged to construct this project has also reviewed the range of rock breaking activity required and confirmed that this can be completed over a two week period. To mitigate the level of noise effects generated during the construction phase (especially during rock breaking) a permanent 2.0m high acoustic fence is proposed along the eastern and western boundaries of the site, and temporarily along the northern and southern boundaries of the site which will provide a sound level reduction of 10db. We accept this advice of the acoustic engineer who has also provided the following commentary: Even with best practice noise mitigation employed, rock breaking noise is predicted to exceed 70 db LAeq at the façade of the closest dwellings by up to decibels for short periods during the day duration or works. Exceedance of the daytime construction noise limits would typically result in annoyance, difficulty communicating outdoors and potentially indoors also. However, short term exceedances of the noise limits are common (and in many cases unavoidable) for inner city construction activities. Such limited exceedances are often considered reasonable if they are of a constrained duration and Best Practicable Option (BPO) measures are implemented to avoid, remedy and mitigate the noise emissions as far as practicable. It is considered that the noise effects would be reduced through implementation of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) including regular communication with occupants of adjacent sites. We accept the advice of the acoustic engineer. Exceedances to construction noise levels will only be temporary and limited to a two week period whereby rock breaking is proposed. Due to the volcanic profile of the site, these noise effects cannot be avoided, however they will be appropriately mitigated by the various mitigation methodologies proposed. This includes the construction of acoustic fences, the implementation of a CNVMP and limiting the days/hours when rock breaking can occur. By implementing these recommendations of the acoustic engineer we consider that construction noise effects from the proposal will be appropriately mitigated to be no more than minor and thus acceptable in nature. In terms of vibration, the acoustic engineer advises that because rock breaking activities is at least 10m from foundations of neighbouring dwellings, rock breaking activities are envisaged to comply with the relevant construction vibration standards. Significant vibration effects are not expected as a result of other construction activities on site. To reduce any potential vibration effects, a CNVMP is 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 67

68 recommended to be implemented. We accept this advice of the acoustic engineer and adopt this recommendation for the implementation of a CNVMP. Relying on this advice of the acoustic engineer, it is considered that vibration effects on the neighbouring properties will be avoided or mitigated to an appropriate nature and that any adverse effects will be minor. Summary Overall, by adopting the various mitigation methods identified above and recommendations of the relevant specialist, it is considered that any actual and potential adverse effects associated with the demolition and construction phase of this proposal will be appropriately avoided or mitigated to be acceptable Vegetation Removal The specimen trees on site are not scheduled for protection or generally protected. As such, this vegetation removal is permitted and the effects on the environment of this are therefore deemed under the AUP OiP to be acceptable. The two London plane trees within the road reserve are proposed to be removed in order to facilitate access of a sufficient width into the basement carpark. These trees have been assessed by the arborist and are considered to be in poor condition with extensive decay such that they do not provide a high quality habitat or food source for wildlife. We accept this advice of the arborist. For the reasons that these trees are low level and do not exhibit a wide spread in canopy or large foliage, we consider that these trees do not offer a significant contribution to the amenity of the streetscape. However, it is acknowledged that these trees contribute to the streetscape character of planting along Kipling Avenue and in order to maintain this character, replanting is proposed. Mitigation planting in the form of either Kohekohe, Puriri or Titoki trees sized at PB95 at the time of planting is proposed to visually mitigate the loss of the two London Plane trees. Due to the limited frontage width of the site and the two crossings proposed, there is only space for the replanting of one tree in the road reserve. A second tree will be planted either elsewhere along Kipling Avenue or the applicant will make a financial contribution to the Council s annual tree planting programme. Asset owner approval from the Council Park s team has been obtained for removal of these trees and the aforementioned replacement planting is also supported by Parks (Refer Appendix 12). Accordingly, we consider that effects on the streetscape will be mitigated and the overall amenity will be enhanced by the improved planting offered. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 68

69 7.3.4 Traffic Effects The relevant traffic effects arising from this proposal relate to traffic generation during the construction and operational phases and the shortfalls in on-site parking and loading. These matters are addressed below with the appropriate advice from the traffic engineer (refer to report in Appendix 5). Traffic generation The activity will only generate vehicle movements on the road network during the days and hours of operation proposed. Given that the locality of the site is bound by two district arterials routes the critical trip generation effects to evaluate would be the during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. The traffic report in Appendix 5 provides various trip generation rates for several other healthcare facilities in the Auckland region and provides estimates on vehicle movements in accordance with relevant guidelines based on the GFA of the building. In recognition of the specialised services offered at this particular healthcare facility, it is considered by the traffic engineer that estimated trip generated rates based on the GFA of the building and other healthcare facilities in the Auckland region does not offer an accurate depiction of the actual vehicle movements that will be generated by this proposal. The first principles approach is therefore more appropriate in this instance. We concur with the traffic engineer in this regard because this would enable a more accurate assessment on the actual traffic generation effects. Based on the first principles approach this facility is anticipated to generate approximately 142 vehicle movements per day, with 20 movements occurring during the morning and afternoon peak periods respectively. The traffic report offers the following assessment of effects in this regard: The main effect on the road network associated with the proposal will be that generated by additional traffic turning to and from the site. This traffic will be split between the intersections of Kipling Avenue and Gillies Avenue as well as Kipling Avenue and Manukau Road. The level of additional traffic generated by the proposal passing through the two intersections will not compromise their respective function, safety or capacity and the intersections will continue to operate in an appropriate manner. There will be an increase in traffic using Kipling Avenue to the east and west of the site. Thus the level of traffic on Kipling Avenue on weekdays is expected to increase by 4% to about 1,770 vehicles per day. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 69

70 While these traffic increases will be noticeable, the resulting daily traffic flows of about 1,800 vehicles per day is still less than half the of 5,000 vehicles per day that Chapter 4 of Auckland Transport s draft Code of Practice - Road Classification indicates is acceptable for Local Roads/Streets. Overall, it is considered that the traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated in the area with little or no impact on other traffic in the area. On this basis, the effects of the proposal are considered to be less than minor. We accept the above advice of the traffic engineer. The highest trip generation periods will be the morning and afternoon peak periods when staff is travelling to and from the site. Based on current operations of the applicant s similar practice at the adjoining site to the south (148 Gillies Avenue), 10% of staff normally travel to work by alternatives modes and therefore do not drive. Therefore, the actual trip generation rates during the morning and afternoon peak periods are likely to be less than that estimated by the traffic engineer. During the off-peak periods, the arrival and departure of patients to the site will be staggered because appointments will be planned in advance with specialists and other medical staff at this facility. This will be an integral part to the successful operations of this healthcare facility due to staffing and the desire to minimise waiting times for patients. As such, whilst the proposal will generate a discernible increase in vehicle movements on the surrounding road network, it important to the note that this will not occur all once but will be evenly spread out over the course of business hours. Accordingly, relying on the advice of the traffic engineer and considering the operational nature of this healthcare facility, we consider that there is sufficient capacity on the road network to accommodate additional vehicle movements generated by the activity and the function or safety of the network will not be compromised by this proposal. Overall, we consider the traffic generation effects on the environment will be avoided to be less than minor and acceptable in nature. Construction vehicle traffic generation In any case where new development is proposed a level of construction traffic will be temporarily generated. The construction period for this development is anticipated to be approximately 18 months and the associated construction traffic generated will include trucks for the delivery of materials to the site and from contractors carrying out the build. The traffic report offers the following assessment of effects in this regard: 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 70

71 The number of truck movements associated with the construction will vary from day to day although, on average, it is estimated that there will be in the order of 10 truck movements per day over the construction period. The levels of truck traffic generated during the construction works can be accommodated with little or no effect on the normal function of Kipling Avenue in this location. There will also be traffic movements associated with the various trades required during the construction period. The number of traffic movements will vary from week to week over the course of the construction period although the number of traffic movements will be lower than that generated by the proposed development when completed. Therefore, the traffic effects during construction will be able to be accommodated on the road network without impacting adversely on other road users. We accept this advice of the traffic engineer. The number of movements generated by construction vehicles is considered to be standard for a development of this scale and consistent with what can be anticipated for a residential build. Notwithstanding this, the temporary construction vehicle movements can be accommodated within the network without adversely affecting the safety or function of its operations. If necessary, a construction traffic management plan can be implemented and secured with appropriate conditions of consent to mitigate effects. Overall, we consider that any actual and potential effects in this regard can be avoided, remedied or mitigated to be acceptable. Car parking The first principles approach relative to the staffing and operational nature of this specialised healthcare facility has also been adopted for the purposes of evaluating actual parking demands generated by this activity. The main findings and conclusions of the traffic assessment for this matter are set out below: Using a first principles approach, the 18 staff would be expected to have a parking demand of about 16 vehicles based on 10 percent of staff arriving by means other than a self-driven car. Patient parking demand would only be related to drop-off and pick-up which given the ability to stagger arrival times for the 4 operating theatres would result in parking demands of about 2 vehicles. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 71

72 Thus, total parking demands would equate to 18 vehicles with all parking demands able to be accommodated on the subject site. We accept this advice of the traffic engineer and are therefore satisfied that parking demands generated by the activity can be accommodated within the semibasement carpark on site without having to rely on the on-street parking along Kipling Avenue. It is also important to note that patients undergoing surgical procedures will be administered sedatives so will not be personally driving to and from the site. Surgical patients are normally picked-up and dropped-off, and the duration of initial consultations with patients is typically 30 minutes. Having regard to this, it is considered that there will be constant quick turnover of parking available for visitors on site. The existing environment is also relevant to the consideration of parking shortfall effects on the environment. The site is currently occupied by a 27 bedroom boarding house with two staff and only four cars can be parked on site. As such, there is an existing shortfall of 16 spaces and occupants of the boarding house therefore currently park on the street because there is insufficient space on site. In this instance, given that all parking demands generated by staff and visitors can be accommodated on site, it is considered that the proposal would in fact relieve current on-street parking demands generated by the boarding house. Accordingly, we consider that adverse effects as consequence of the technical car parking shortfall will be avoided and the overall effects in terms of parking will be positive through the provision of sufficient on-site parking, and that any adverse effects will be minor. Loading A dedicated loading bay will not be provided on site. However, the new access to the site has been purposefully designed to enable a small truck to temporarily stop on site at one side of the access way for loading and servicing of the site (refer to sheet RC-102 in Appendix 3). This temporary loading bay will be located on the 1:20 gradient portion of the ramp and the access way is 6.0m wide. Therefore, on the occasions where there are small trucks visiting the site for loading or servicing purposes, there is adequate provision for this on site while still enabling cars to exit or enter the basement carpark while this occurs. This arrangement has been assessed by the traffic engineer and is considered to be appropriate for the low frequency of trucks visiting. Overall, we concur with the traffic engineer and consider that effects as a result of the loading space shortfall will be avoided, remedied or mitigated to be acceptable and any adverse effects will be minor. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 72

73 Parking Layout The traffic assessment for this application has also carried out a design audit for the layout of the carpark and new access to the site. The conclusions of the traffic engineer in this regard are set out below: The location of some of the staff parking spaces may mean a 2 or 3 point manoeuvre to enter or exit the space depending on how the driver positions the vehicle. Given that the parking area will be used by regular users who will be familiar with the access requirements of the parking spaces, this is considered to be acceptable. The sight distances available exceed the minimum recommended for this movement and hence are considered to be acceptable. Furthermore, the location of the vehicle crossing ensures good levels of intervisibility between vehicles entering and exiting the site and pedestrians using the footpath on Kipling Avenue. We rely on the expertise of the traffic engineer and therefore accept the comments above. Given that sightlines on each side of the new access are in excess of minimum requirements and the layout has been designed so as to enable vehicles to manoeuvre within the carpark and exit the site in a forward manner, we consider that effects on pedestrian and traffic safety will be avoided. Summary Overall, relying on the advice of the traffic engineer and considering the operational nature of the proposed activity, we consider that any adverse traffic, parking and loading-related effects on the environment will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor Residential amenity - Healthcare facility in residential zone Healthcare facilities are commonly located in residential areas and there is a wide presence of this particularly in the Epsom area. As such, and because they are specifically provided for in the Plan, we consider the activity proposed to be generally compatible with the residential surrounds of the site because the activity itself does not give rise to any obnoxious or other effects that are incompatible in a residential setting. The traffic effects of this proposal have been evaluated in detail in the foregoing assessments above and overall, we have concluded that the traffic effects are acceptable in this environment such that it would not substantially alter the traffic character of this residential environment. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 73

74 In terms of operational noise, the acoustic report in Appendix 7 confirms that the combination of noise sources from operations of this healthcare facility together with the various mechanical plant and equipment on site, will comply with the applicable daytime noise levels to the nearest adjacent residential properties. We accept the advice of the acoustic specialist in this regard. Further, we emphasise that all noise generating mechanical devices (i.e. chiller, ventilation units and emergency generator) will be located within the basement carpark or within the building itself, and a 2.0m high acoustic fence will be permanently implemented along the eastern and western site boundaries. Noise generated by people, in our view, will have minor effects because the nature of the activity itself involves visits by staff and patients to the main entrance and basement on the site. Further, the number of people on site at any one time between this healthcare facility compared to the current 27 bedroom boarding house is comparable. Overall, relying on the advice of the acoustic specialist and by adopting the recommended conditions of consent, the operational noise effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated to an acceptable level such that it will be appropriate with the residential surrounds of the site and any adverse effects will be minor. Built Form/Streetscape Character Kipling Avenue presents a varied mix of residential forms ranging from contemporary and modern homes to Victorian style villas. The design of the new building presents a contemporary architectural built form and represents a change in character from the existing villa of the site. Kipling Avenue is not located within a special character area and the residential buildings along this length of this street present a varied residential character in terms of built form. As such, the contemporary architectural style of this new building is considered to be an acceptable addition and will be compatible to the mixed streetscape character of Kipling Avenue. While it is acknowledged that the new building infringes several development standards, the overall bulk and mass is comparable to the existing villa on site. To meet the on-site parking requirements and overall needs of this facility, the site will be excavated to form a semi-basement carpark and to lower the building into the topography of the site. The building will also be set back from the street, sited closer to the southern boundary of the site in order to provide opportunities for landscaping along the frontage to ensure its appearance is compatible when viewed from the street. The first floor of the building has been sited closer to the northern part of the western boundary where written approval from neighbours has been obtained. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 74

75 The 3D renderings in Appendix 3 provide a comparison between the existing and proposed built forms. To summarise, the proposal will reduce existing building mass adjacent to the eastern boundary and the new or increased mass adjoining the western and southern boundaries will relate those properties from which written approval has been obtained. The upper level has been set back from the eastern façade and articulated to break up the appearance of its mass. In these respects, the proposal involves an improvement to the existing situation along the eastern boundary and notwithstanding the overall size of the building will ensure any adverse effects will be minor. The sun studies in Appendix 3 also provide a comparison of shading effects between the existing and proposed buildings. These shading studies show there will not be significant differences in shading between the existing and proposed built form. Where shading effects have increased these are mainly confined with the subject site itself, sites to which written consent has been obtained or the nonliving outdoor areas (mainly driveway and manoeuvring areas) of sites to the east 9. In these respects, the shading effects are considered to be acceptable and any adverse effects will be minor by comparison with existing shading. The overall length of the building is approximately 41.0m. To mitigate actual and potential visual dominance effects on the neighbouring properties, the façade has been articulated and a range of exterior finishes will be incorporated into the building to break up the appearance of the facade. Boundary treatment landscaping will also be implemented (refer to Appendix 3 and 4) to soften the appearance of the building as viewed from the street and adjacent residential properties. Accordingly, it is considered that visual dominance effects of the building will be appropriately and sufficiently mitigated to be no more than minor in this residential context. Privacy Privacy effects to those residential properties that have not given written approval to this proposal will be avoided. The eastern façade of the building interfaces the driveway and on-site vehicle manoeuvring of 20A - 20C Kipling Avenue and the first floor of the building will achieve a separation distance of the over 4.0m the eastern boundary. A 2.0m high fence will be also implemented along the eastern boundary. Given these elements of the design, it is considered that any overlooking or loss of privacy effects to the adjoining eastern residential properties will be minor. In terms of the western boundary, the 2.0m high fence along the boundary will effectively screen views from the ground floor level of the building. At the first floor, all the windows along the rear end of this elevation are situated adjacent to 9 20A, 20B and 20C Kipling Avenue. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 75

76 the circulation areas of the building only. The first floor of the building is only accessible by staff and throughout majority of the day staff will be primarily located on the ground floor performing their duties. As such, the first floor of the building will not be occupied by people over extended periods of the day. Overall, it is considered that current levels of privacy from the adjacent residential properties will be maintained and adverse effects in this regard will be avoided or mitigated to be minor. Summary Overall, the healthcare activity is considered to be compatible with the residential surrounds of the site and any adverse effects arising from the bulk and mass of the building will be sufficiently and appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor Servicing The site is not serviced by public piped stormwater reticulation and so new a private stormwater drainage system is proposed in the form of a soakhole (refer Appendix 10). Testing results carried out on site indicate that this is a feasible method of stormwater discharge from the site and because the total increase of impervious area between the existing and proposed development is minimal at 24m 2. The existing wastewater line traversing through the south-western corner of the site will diverted in order to facilitate the new building footprint. A new diverted connection will be formed, connecting to the wastewater manhole at the northeastern corner of the 148 Gillies Avenue owned by the applicant. The servicing report (refer Appendix 10) also confirms that there is sufficient capacity in the downstream sewer to accommodate the proposed facility. Accordingly, relying on this advice of the development engineer, we are satisfied that this development will be sufficiently serviced with the necessary infrastructure Summary Overall, we consider that the proposed activity will be compatible with and appropriate in this residential context. The actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal on the environment will be avoided, remedied and mitigated to ensure they will be minor. The proposal will have positive effects through the new building positively contributing to the amenity of the built environment, a reduction of on-street parking demands generated by the boarding house and the provision of an important healthcare service to the community. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 76

77 7.4 DISTRICT PLAN AND ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY DOCUMENTS (SECTION 104(1)(B)) The Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part is considered to be relevant to the assessment of this application. These provisions are identified and evaluated below Objectives and Policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part E12 Land Disturbance (District) The objectives and policies for earthworks seek to ensure earthworks are undertaken in a manner that protects people and the environment, the risk of natural hazards is not increased by earthworks and sediment generation is minimised. We consider the proposal to be consistent with these provisions. The gradient of the site presents a gentle sloping topography and the geotechnical report in Appendix 9 confirms that there are no slope stability issues associated with the site. Engineering investigations also confirm that the site is not subject to any flood hazards and the OLFP as shown on the Council GIS viewer does not traverse through any part of the site. Based on this advice, we are satisfied that the earthworks will be undertaken in manner whereby land instability effects will be avoided and the risk of flooding effects will not be exacerbated. The implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan incorporating best practice methodologies in accordance with TP90 as a condition of consent will appropriately avoid, remedy or mitigate any temporary sedimentation effects on the environment. Changes to the landform of the site as a result of this proposal are considered be acceptable in this instance because the site is located in highly modified urban setting and with no associated significant landscape values. Overall, consistency with the objectives and policies for earthworks is achieved E17 Trees in Roads The provisions seek to ensure that trees in roads that contribute to cultural, landscape, amenity and ecological values are protected. An increase to the quality and extent of tree cover in roads is also sought to be achieved. This is supported in the policy framework by encouraging the ongoing maintenance of trees while recognising the functional requirements of the site and selecting indigenous species when replanting to recognise and reflect cultural, amenity, landscape and ecological values. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 77

78 We consider the proposal to be consistent with these provisions. The two London plane trees to be removed have been assessed by the arborist to be in poor health with extensive decay and do not provide a high quality habitat for wildlife in its current form. The ecological values associated with these two trees are therefore considered to be low. Further, the low height and poor foliage of these trees do not, in our view, offer a significant contribution the landscape and visual amenity of the Kipling Avenue streetscape. The replanting of one 2.5m high native specimen tree outside the site along with another native specimen elsewhere along the Kipling Avenue road reserve would, in our view, improve the overall amenity, landscape and ecological values performed by trees in roads. Asset owner approval and the written support from the Council Parks team also affirms that this is an acceptable outcome. Overall, the relevant provisions for trees in the roads are considered to be met E25 Noise and Vibration The overall thrust of the objectives and policies for noise and vibration, from the operation of an activity and construction activities, seek to ensure that people are protected from unreasonable levels of noise and vibration. In particular, amenity values of a residential environment are to be protected from unreasonable noise and vibration effects with a specific emphasis on the evening periods. It is also clear from our review of the provisions that where construction activities will not comply with the noise or vibration standards, regardless of the zoning and site surrounds, this is not considered to be an acceptable outcome. Overall, the provisions seek to enable activities but appropriately control and manage the effects of noise. We consider the proposal to be consistent with these provisions. While the construction of the proposal is anticipated to be completed over an 18-month period, the highest noise levels generated will be over the two week rock breaking period. Considering the volcanic profile of the isthmus area this is not considered to be an unusual aspect of development and this same outcome could be generated if this proposal was for a residential build. The recommendations in the acoustic report to enclose the site with 2m high hoarding around the perimeter of the site along with the development and implementation of a CNMVP will sufficiently and appropriate protect people from noise and vibrations over the duration of construction. Further, by controlling the duration, timing and frequency of rock breaking activities and restricting construction activities to certain time and days of the week, all of which can be secured by appropriate conditions of consent, we are satisfied the people will be protected from unreasonable levels of noise and vibration. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 78

79 The operational nature of this healthcare facility is also such that it does not generate high noise levels that are incompatible with its residential surrounds. This healthcare facility operates during the daytime only. There is no provision for overnight stay so there will be no staff or people coming and going in the evenings. Accordingly, the aural amenity values of this residential environment will be maintained. Overall, we consider the proposal to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for noise and vibration E27 Transport The overall thrust of the transport provisions seek to ensure adverse effects of traffic generation on the transport network are managed, and the provision of parking and loading is commensurate with the scale, character and intensity of the zone. A quality and compact urban form is also sought to be achieved by these transportation initiatives. We consider the proposal to be consistent with these provisions. It has been determined by the traffic engineer that there is sufficient carrying capacity on the road network to accommodate the additional 4% of vehicle movements generated by the activity without comprising its safety or function. The provision of parking of on-site represents a significant improvement to the existing situation and given the specialised nature of this healthcare facility the overall supply is considered to be commensurate with the anticipated demand. The provision of parking within the basement carpark will also screen the parking from view along Kipling Avenue, thereby maintaining the visual amenity values of this residential environment. Further, the provision of secure bicycle parking for staff within the building promotes alternative modes of transport to the site and supports the sustainable transport initiatives of the Plan. In terms of loading, the new access way has been designed to accommodate this space without inconveniencing movements in and out of the basement or pedestrians on the footpath (ie. no overhanging). The loading bay at the northeastern corner of the site will be dedicated to gas delivery for health and safety reasons. Because gas delivery and the associated use of this loading bay will be infrequent, we do not consider that pedestrian safety along the frontage length of the site to be compromised. Having regard to the analysis above, the relevant transport objectives and policies of the Plan are considered to be met. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 79

80 H4 - Mixed Housing Suburban zone A key outcome for establishing non-residential activities in the MHS zone is providing for the community s social, economic and cultural well-being while being compatible with the scale and intensity of development anticipated by the zone. Development should therefore be in keeping with the planned suburban built character of the neighbourhood. These desired outcomes for the zone are supported in the policy framework by providing for the non-residential activities to occur in this zone and requiring the height, bulk and location of development to maintain a reasonable standard of sunlight access and privacy, and to minimise visual dominance effects to adjoining sites. Having regard to these matters, we consider the proposal to be consistent with these for the reasons below: The specialised services offered at this healthcare facility will be of benefit to the population at large and the wider community of Auckland region by providing an important healthcare service dedicated to screening for and prevention of bowel cancer through colonoscopy and polyp removal. By enabling the establishment of this important preventative healthcare service at a central location in Auckland that is a within the same catchment to other healthcare facilities in the wider Epsom area and Auckland City Hospital, this will enhance and provide for the social wellbeing of the wider community. Further, the specialised nature of this particular healthcare facility at this location is such that it will not compete with or detract from the vitality of business centre zones. The overall bulk and mass of the building and where this sits in relation to the adjoining residential properties has been carefully designed in effort to maintain amenity values of the adjoining properties. This is achieved by siting the first floor of the building where it generates a higher bulk and mass to those adjacent sites where written consent has been obtained and the consequential amenity values have therefore been accepted. For all other adjacent sites, the first floor of the building has been purposefully setback to achieve a greater separation distance to avoid unacceptable shading and dominance effects and maintain an appropriate level of inter-site amenity. The orientation and floor layout of the proposed facility, together with the screening and boundary treatment proposed, will ensure that direct overlooking into outdoor living areas of the adjoining residential properties is avoided. In particular, the first floor of the building will only contain staff facilities and plantrooms that support the overall functions and operations of this facility. There are no large areas of glazing on the western and eastern 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 80

81 façade of the upper level that would provide opportunities for overlooking and reduce the level of privacy for occupants on adjacent sites. The perspective drawings in Appendix 4 demonstrate the proposed building will positively respond to the Kipling Avenue streetscape though the provision of pedestrian entry directly off the street and an upper level deck that will overlook the street. Setting the building back from the street and the implementation of the landscape planting in front of the building will collectively contribute to reducing the perceived bulk and mass of the building and visually integrate this with the built form along Kipling Avenue. Engineering investigations carried out for the site confirm that there is sufficient capacity in the infrastructure network to accommodate the proposed development and the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the development. Overall, for the reasons given above, we consider the proposal to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies for the Mixed Housing Suburban zone. 7.5 RELEVANT RULES AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Discretionary activity consent is required for the proposed healthcare activity and so the assessment of this application is not limited to matters which the Council has reserved its control or restricted its discretion to in the assessment criteria. However, we have had regard to the relevant assessment criteria as this has formed the basis for our effects assessment and we have concluded that the adverse effects on the environment will be avoided or mitigated to be minor. There is also a hierarchical relationship between assessment criteria and the objectives and policies of the Plans. Our assessment has concluded that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Plan and in the interest of avoiding repetition, the proposal is also considered to satisfy the relevant assessment criteria. 7.6 SUMMARY This application seeks resource consent to construct and operate a new healthcare facility on a residential zoned site involving demolition of the existing villa on the site. Those matters and the parking, servicing, earthworks and tree-related consent matters require discretionary and restricted activity consents under the AUP OiP. As detailed in the assessments supported by expert advice within the body of this report, the adverse effects of the proposal will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor. The proposal has also been evaluated against the relevant 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 81

82 objectives and policies of the AUP OiP and our overall view is that the proposal will be consistent with, and not contrary to, these provisions. 7.7 PART 2 MATTERS Section 5 of Part 2 identifies the purpose of the RMA as being the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. This means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing and health and safety while sustaining those resources for future generations, protecting the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, and avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment. The development is considered to be complementary to these objectives. Specifically, the development represents the sustainable use and development of a natural and physical resource which will provide for the well-being of people and communities through the provision of important healthcare service. It has also been demonstrated that adverse effects of the activity on the environment will avoided, remedied or mitigated to an acceptable level in this predominantly residential setting. Section 6 of the Act sets out a number of matters of national importance including (but not limited to) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes and historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. For this application, whilst the existing villa was built pre-1944, it has been significantly and poorly modified to the point where it possesses very minimal heritage value. Accordingly, we do not consider that the existing villa qualifies as significant historic heritage and warrants protection as a matter of national importance. Section 7 identifies a number of other matters to be given particular regard by Council and includes (but is not limited to) Kaitiakitanga, the efficient use of natural and physical resources, the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values, and maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the matters in section 7. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the matters in section 7 because it represents the efficient use and development of a valuable natural and physical resource. Section 8 requires Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is considered that this proposal will not offend against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Overall, as the effects of the proposal will be no more than minor, and the proposal accords with the relevant AUP OiP objectives, policies, and assessment criteria, it is 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 82

83 considered that the proposal will not offend against the general resource management principles set out in Part 2 of the Act. 8.0 OTHER MATTERS (SECTION 104(1)(c)) Pre-application Meeting Discussions The development scheme for this project has evolved over four years of preapplication meeting discussions with the Council (ref numbers PG/2012/489, PG/2015/1157 and PG/2016/666). Consequently, multiple design revisions have been undertaken to arrive at the current scheme in this application to address the various matters raised by Council officers, primarily in relation to the overall bulk, form and mass of the proposed building. The current scheme has taken on board the various comments from Council such that, in our view, this is considered to be an appropriate and acceptable development outcome for the site. Neighbour Consultation As noted in the assessment above neighbours have been consulted regarding the proposed facility. These have resulted in a significant reduction in the extent of the facility proposed for the site and in the particular arrangement of the building within the site and incorporation of design features and other measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects and otherwise address matters raised. 9.0 CONCLUSION The application to construct and operate a new purpose-built healthcare facility providing for flexible endoscopy (including gastroscopy and colonoscopy) and laparoscopic surgical services at 22 Kipling Avenue, Epsom includes demolition of the existing building on property and site and tree works to facilitate development. The proposal accords with the relevant objectives and policies of the AUP OiP. The effects on the environment have been assessed in detail within the body of this report and adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated to be minor. The positive effects on the environment will also be significant through the provision of a high quality endoscopy unit dedicated to the prevention of bowel cancer by the medical services offered. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies all matters the consent authority is required to assess and therefore this application can be granted subject to an appropriate suite of conditions of consent. 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 83

84 AUTHORS Mary Wong / Karl Cook Planner / Director Barker & Associates Limited Date: 15 November Kipling Ave, Epsom B&A Ref: Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared by Mary Wong Issue 3 - November Reviewed by Karl Cook 84

85 Created: Friday, 8 July 2016,10:27:06 a.m. A4 1: This map/plan is illustrative only and all information should be independently verified on site before taking any action.copyright Auckland Council. Boundary information from LINZ (Crown Copyright Reserved). Whilst due care has been taken, Auckland Council gives no warranty as to the accuracy and completeness of any information on this map/plan and accepts no liability for any error, omission or use of the information. Height datum: Auckland Locality Plan

86 COMPUTER FREEHOLD REGISTER UNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 1952 Search Copy NA453/113 North Auckland Identifier Land Registration District Date Issued 14 March 1927 Prior References NA339/89 Estate Fee Simple Area 1249 square metres more or less Legal Description Lot 1 Deposited Plan Proprietors Kipling House Limited Interests Subject to Part IV A Conservation Act 1987 Subject to Section 11 Crown Minerals Act Mortgage to Bank of New Zealand at 11:44 am Transaction Id Client Reference smarshall003 Search Copy Dated 2/06/16 3:38 pm, Page 1 of 2 86 Register Only

87 Identifier NA453/113 Transaction Id Client Reference smarshall003 Search Copy Dated 2/06/16 3:38 pm, Page 2 of 2 87 Register Only

88 88

89 Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland COVER SHEET RC-01 DATE: 22/06/

90 100 08' 0" BDY 23.16m LEGAL DESCRIPTION K I P L I N G A V E N U E LOT 1 DP Area 1249m2 CT NA453/113 # TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY # ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 Auckland City Council ZONE Residential 6a # ' 30" BDY 53.61m LOT 1 DP ' 30" BDY 54.35m #20b #20a #18 SITE AREA 1250m2 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE 33% WIND ZONE LOW OTHER E05-09 VIEW PROTECTION - VOLCANIC VIEW CONE AFFECTED AREA #20c Legend Landscape Permeable Surface 534m² (42.7%) Building Coverage 415m2 (33.3%) #148 Impermeable Surface 301m² (24%) Front yard. 47% of the first 2.5m is Landscaped Permeable 2 1 : 200 Plan EXISTING LOCATION PLAN N Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING EXISTING LOCATION PLAN A1 1: 200 DRAWING No. RC-001 REV. D 90

91 FOOT PATH NEW VEHICLE CROSSING ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NEW PURIRI / TITOKI / KOHEKOHE TREES TBC 2500 #144 #24 #22 #20a #18 # ' 30" BDY 53.61m LOT 1 DP ' 30" BDY 54.35m #20b LOT 3 DP Legend Landscape Permeable Surface 440.9m² (35.3%, NON- COMPLIANT min 40%) LOT 28 DP 3775 #20c Building Coverage 524.4m2 (43.7%, NON-COMPLIANT max 35%) Paved Impermeable Surface 263m² (21%, COMPLIANT max 25%) # ' 0" BDY 23.16m Front yard 41% of the first 2.5m is Landscaped Permeable 1 1 : 200 Plan RC-002 PROPOSED LOCATION PLAN N Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED LOCATION PLAN A1 1: 200 DRAWING No. RC-002 REV. D 91

92 92

93 1 RC A B C D RC CHUTE FROM ABOVE 2 RC ' 30" BDY 53.61m E FOOT PATH K I P L I N G A V E 6 B.05 BIN STORE 7 m² LEVEL SURFACE B.0 LIFT B.04 LIFT LOBBY B.03 STORE B.02 MED GAS B.01 PLANT PROPOSED PURIRI / TITOKI / KOHEKOHE TREE TBC RC-112 RC ' 0" BDY 23.16m E B.09 STORE B.08 STAIR STACKER 13/14 STACKER 11/12 HYDRANT RISER STACKER 9/10 STACKER 7/8 RL B.00 CAR PARK STACKER 5/6 STACKER 3/4 B.07 CLEAN LINEN STORE STACKER 15/16 STACKER 17/18 STACKER 19/20 STACKER 20/21 STACKER 22/23 CHANGE IN SLOPE PLANT B.06 DIRTY LINEN STORE RAMP 1: CHANGE IN SLOPE 1 CHANGE IN SLOPE LOW WALL RL PLANT [CHILLER] 3030 RL :8 CHANGE IN SLOPE SECURITY DOOR [ROLLER SHUTTER GRILLE] LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 6000 F ' 30" BDY 23.16m RC ' 30" BDY 54.35m 1 RC-202 Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT A1 1: 100 DRAWING No. RC-101 REV. F 93

94 H.I.R.B. POINT 'A' EXISTING G.L. AT BOUNDARY = m = = H.I.R.B. POINT 'B' EXISTING G.L. AT BOUNDARY = m = = H.I.R.B. POINT 'C' EXISTING G.L. AT BOUNDARY = m = = H.I.R.B. POINT 'D' EXISTING G.L. AT BOUNDARY = m = = H.I.R.B. POINT 'E' EXISTING G.L. AT BOUNDARY = m = = H.I.R.B. POINT 'F' EXISTING G.L. AT BOUNDARY = m = = MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT = PROPOSED HEIGHT = CLEARED MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT = PROPOSED HEIGHT = CLEARED MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT = PROPOSED HEIGHT = BREACHED = MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT = PROPOSED HEIGHT = CLEARED MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT = PROPOSED HEIGHT = BREACHED = MAX ALLOWED HEIGHT = PROPOSED HEIGHT = CLEARED OVER ALL 1 RC-111 A B C D RC-202 SK RC-111 E F HIRB POINT 'A' HIRB POINT 'C' A 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m C WC G.22 P/R B G.24 P/R B G.25 P/R B WC WC G.28 P/R A G.29 P/R A NEW PATH CARPARK BELOW SHOWN DASHED G.30 P/R A G.31 P/R A LIFT G.32 WIND LOBBY ENTRY R.L FIRE ALARM PANEL RAMP 1:15 R.L ' 30" BDY 23.16m PROPOSED PURIRI / TITOKI / KOHEKOHE TREE TBC EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED SHOWN IN RED DASH LINE GROUND FLOOR OVER ALL HIRB POINT 'E' E RC-112 RC ' 0" BDY 23.16m ROOF TO CARPARK BELOW SCRUB WC G.16 ENDO 1 G.13 P/R B G.12 P/R B B G.11 P/R B G.17 ENDO 2 G.10 P/R B G.18 NURSE G.09 DRUG STORE WC WC G.07 P/R A G.19 ENDO 3 ROOF TO CARPARK BELOW G.06 P/R A G.20 ENDO 4 G.05 P/R A D G.04 P/R A ACC WC G.02 WAITING 1 G.02 WAITING NEW BUILDING SIGNAGE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE CHANGE IN SLOPE R.L PROPOSED LOADING AREA RAMP 1: F HIRB POINT 'E' R.L RC-201 RC EXISTING CROSSING 6300 PROPOSED CROSSING AT FOOTPATH NEW UNLIT DUAL SIDED STREET SIGN. MATERIAL TO COMPLIMENT BUILDING HIRB POINT 'B' 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 1 HIRB POINT 'D' NEW TRANSFORMER RC-202 SK-601 Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - GROUND A1 1: 100 DRAWING No. RC-102 REV. H 94

95 1 1 INSE R T PO IN T TO W ALL 1 RC-111 RC RC-111 A B C D OVER ALL E A 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m C MEMBRANE ROOF BIKES RC-112 UP 1.11 PLANT SSD DIRTY 1.06A SHOWER 1.05B WC 1.05A WC 1.03 ADMIN DECK RC ' 0" BDY 23.16m MEMBRANE ROOF SERVICE AREA SERVICE ACCESS SERVICE AREA 1.09 SSD CLEAN SERVICE ACCESS INSERT POINT TO WALL 1.06 M CHANGE 1.04 ADMIN ' 30" BDY 23.16m RC B D 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 1 RC-202 Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 A1 1: 100 DRAWING No. RC-103 REV. F 95

96 A B C D E A 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m C 6 R.L MEMBRANE ROOF Roof Fall R.L R.L METAL ROOF - MIN 4 Roof Fall ' 0" BDY 23.16m MEMBRANE ROOF R.L R.L ' 30" BDY 23.16m B D 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A1 1: 200 DRAWING No. RC-104 REV. D 96

97 RL PARAPET RL ROOF RL FIRST FLOOR RL GROUND SITE BOUNDARY m MAX HEIGHT m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 2m+45deg HIRB 'B' R.L REC 7 R.L PLANT ENDO m+45deg PAUP CONTROL REC m+45deg HIRB 'A' R.L SITE BOUNDARY 8m MAX HEIGHT R.L PARKING 3695 EXISTING GROUND LINE RL BASEMENT 1 RC : 100 Section Section A LEGEND INFRINGMENT- HEIGHT IN RELATION TO BOUNDARY INFRINGMENT- 8m MAXIMUM HEIGHT RL PARAPET RL ROOF RL FIRST FLOOR RL GROUND 2500 SITE BOUNDARY R.L R.L RL m MAX HEIGHT 2.5m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 2m+45deg HIRB 'D' G.05 P/R A 1900 G.20 ENDO 4 G.30 P/R A m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 2m+45deg HIRB 'C' 2000 SITE BOUNDARY 2500 R.L m MAX HEIGHT 3855 PARKING 3695 RL BASEMENT EXISTING GROUND LINE 2 RC : 100 Section Section B Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING SECTION SHEET 1 A1 1: 100 DRAWING No. RC-111 REV. F 97

98 A B C D E RL ROOF RL FIRST FLOOR RL PARAPET PAUP INFRINGEMENT SITE BOUNDARY 2.5m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 45 2m+35deg HIRB 'E' 8m MAX HEIGHT PLANT? NURSE ENDO 1 ENDO 2 ENDO 3 ENDO 4 WAITING 1 8m MAX HEIGHT 9500 DELIVERY ZONE 2m+55deg HIRB 'F' SITE BOUNDARY RL GROUND R.L PAUP 2000 R.L RL BASEMENT 3855 R 2300 MIN EXISTING GROUND LINE O.L.F.P. CHANNEL ENGINEER TO CONFIRM SIZE 3 A : 100 Section Proposed Long Section LEGEND INFRINGMENT- HEIGHT IN RELATION TO BOUNDARY INFRINGMENT- 8m MAXIMUM HEIGHT Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING SECTION SHEET 2 A1 1: 100 DRAWING No. RC-112 REV. F 98

99 RL PARAPET RL ROOF 650 STAINED CEDAR WEATHERBOARD SITE BOUNDARY R.L m MAX HEIGHT 3200 PROFILED METAL CLADDING R.L RL Level 1 RL GROUND m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 2m+45deg m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 2m+45deg 2000 RL BASEMENT R.L RL PARAPET RL ROOF RL Level SITE BOUNDARY 2m+45deg 8m MAX HEIGHT m MAX HEIGHT AT ELEVATION 2.5m+45deg PAUP CONTROL 2m+45deg SITE BOUNDARY STAINED CEDAR WEATHERBOARD PROFILED METAL CLADDING RL GROUND SITE BOUNDARY 3855 PROPOSED BUILDING SIGNAGE [UPLIT] 1 RC : 100 Elevation RC NORTH ELEVATION m+45deg PAUP CONTROL RL BASEMENT 2 RC : 100 Elevation RC SOUTH ELEVATION Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - NORTH & SOUTH A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-201 REV. E 99

100 A B C D E F RL PARAPET RL ROOF 650 SITE BOUNDARY 2.5m+45deg PAUP CONTROL SITE BOUNDARY 8m max HEIGHT RL Level m+35deg STAINED CEDAR WEATHERBOARD 2m+55deg PROFILED METAL CLADDING SCORIA WALL 45 RL GROUND SITE BOUNDARY PLANTED GREEN WALL RL BASEMENT 1 RC : 100 Elevation RC EAST ELEVATION F E D C B A 2.5m+45deg PAUP CONTROL RL PARAPET RL ROOF RL Level 1 RL GROUND SITE BOUNDARY 2m+55deg SCORIA WALL RAMP 8m MAX HEIGHT STAINED CEDAR WEATHERBOARD PROFILED METAL CLADDING R.L PLANTED GREEN WALL 45 2m+35deg 2000 SITE BOUNDARY 2500 RL BASEMENT 2 RC : 100 Elevation RC WEST ELEVATION Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - EAST & WEST A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-202 REV. E 100

101 K I P L I N G A V E N U E # ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E K I P L I N G A V E N U E K I P L I N G A V E N U E # ' 30" BDY 23.16m LOT 1 DP #22 #20b # #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m LOT 1 DP #22 #20b # #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m LOT 1 DP #22 #20b # #20a 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #24 K I P L I N G A V E N U E K I P L I N G A V E N U E ' 30" BDY 23.16m #24 #24 EXISTING SHADOW ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 #20a 2320 #22 #20 #20a #22 #20 #20a LOT 1 DP #20b 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m N 1 1 : 500 Plan 2 1 : 500 Plan 3 1 : 500 Plan Existing April-Sept 9 am Existing April - Sept 12 pm Existing April-Sept 3 pm 4 1 : 500 Plan 5 1 : 500 Plan 6 1 : 500 Plan Proposed April-September 9 am Proposed April-September 12 pm Proposed April-September 3 pm 7 1 : 500 Plan 8 1 : 500 Plan Existing & Proposed April-September 9 am Existing & Proposed April-September 12 pm 9 1 : 500 Plan Existing & Proposed April-September 3 pm Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING SUN STUDIES APRIL-SEPT A1 1: 500 DRAWING No. RC-301 REV. C

102 K I P L I N G A V E N U E # ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m LOT 1 DP #22 #20b #20 #20a 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m 1 1 : 500 Plan 2 1 : 500 Plan 3 1 : 500 Plan Existing June 21st 9 am Existing June 21st 12 pm Existing June 21st 3 pm K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E # ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 #20a #24 #22 #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 #20a 2320 LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m 4 1 : 500 Plan 5 1 : 500 Plan 6 1 : 500 Plan Proposed June 21st 9 am Proposed June 21st 12 pm Proposed June 21st 3 pm K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E #24 #24 # ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 EXISTING SHADOW #20a #22 #20 #20a #22 #20 #20a LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m 7 1 : 500 Plan 8 1 : 500 Plan 9 1 : 500 Plan Existing & Proposed June 21st 9 am Existing & Proposed June 21st 12 pm Existing & Proposed June 21st 3 pm Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING SUN STUDIES JUNE 21st A1 1: 500 DRAWING No. RC-302 REV. B JOB No

103 K I P L I N G A V E N U E # ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m K I P L I N G A V E N U E #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a # ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 LOT 1 DP #20b #20 #20a 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m 1 1 : 500 Plan 2 1 : 500 Plan 3 1 : 500 Plan Existing Dec 21st 9 am Existing Dec 21st 12 pm Existing Dec 21st 3 pm K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E #24 #24 # ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 #20a #22 #20 #20a #22 #20 #20a LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m 4 1 : 500 Plan 5 1 : 500 Plan 6 1 : 500 Plan Proposed Dec 21st 9 am Proposed Dec 21st 12 pm Proposed Dec 21st 3 pm K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E K I P L I N G A V E #24 #24 # ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 EXISTING SHADOW #20a #22 #20 #20a #22 #20 #20a LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b LOT 1 DP #20b 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m 11 57' 30" BDY 54.35m #20c #20c #20c ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 0" BDY 23.16m 7 1 : 500 Plan 8 1 : 500 Plan 9 1 : 500 Plan Existing & Proposed Dec 21st 9 am Existing & Proposed Dec 21st 12 pm Existing & Proposed Dec 21st 3 pm Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING SUN STUDIES DEC 21st A1 1: 500 DRAWING No. RC-303 REV. B JOB No

104 Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING 3D PERSPECTIVES A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-901 REV. C 104

105 Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING 3D PERSPECTIVES A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-902 REV. C 105

106 EXISTING WEST CORNER - MAX HEIGHT PROPOSED WEST CORNER - MAX HEIGHT EXISTING WEST CORNER - MAX HIRB PROPOSED WEST CORNER - MAX HIRB Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED WEST CORNER - MAXIMUM HEIGHT A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-911 REV. C & HIRB 106

107 EXISTING EAST CORNER - MAX HEIGHT PROPOSED EAST CORNER - MAX HEIGHT EXISTING EAST CORNER - MAX HIRB PROPOSED EAST CORNER - MAX HIRB Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED EAST CORNER - MAXIMUM HEIGHT & A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-912 REV. C HIRB 107

108 EXISTING SOUTH CORNER - MAX HEIGHT PROPOSED SOUTH CORNER - MAX HEIGHT EXISTING SOUTH CORNER - MAX HIRB PROPOSED SOUTH CORNER - MAX HIRB Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland JOB No August 2016 PREPARED FOR Endoscopy & Laparoscopy Auckland DRAWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOUTH CORNER - MAXIMUM HEIGHT A1 1: DRAWING No. RC-913 REV. C & HIRB 108

109 Drawing Plotted: 26 Aug :27 a.m. CIVIL Project No DRAWING LIST CA-0101 A COVER SHEET & DRAWING INDEX CA-0102 A EARTHWORKS CUT & FILL PLAN CA-0103 A STORMWATER PLAN (ON-SITE SOAKHOLE) CA-0104 A EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN CA-0105 A SEWER PLAN (DIVERSION) CA-0106 A OVERLAND FLOW PATH KIPLING ENDOSCOPY FOR RESOURCE CONSENT Prepared for KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED By Beca CA-0101.DWG Drawing No CA Rev. A Document No.

110 Drawing Plotted: 26 Aug :04 p.m. SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS N GILLIES A CUT / FILL CHAINAGE DATUM EXISTING GROUND LEVEL FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL CUT / FILL CHAINAGE DATUM EXISTING GROUND LEVEL FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL DATUM EXISTING GROUND LEVEL FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL CUT / FILL CHAINAGE EARTHWORKS AREA IN CUT TOTAL CUT: 1596m³ INCLUSIVE ROCK: 278m³ SOIL COMPONENT: 1318m³ TOTAL FILL: : NEGLIGIBLE (0.14 m³) EXCESS CUT OVER FILL: 1596m³ WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION CROSS SECTION CROSS SECTION CROSS SECTION SCALE HZ 1 : 200 AT A1, VT 1 : 200 AT A1 SCALE HZ 1 : 200 AT A1, VT 1 : 200 AT A1 SCALE HZ 1 : 200 AT A1, VT 1 : 200 AT A LOT 28 DP 3775 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS LOT 1 DP SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 6.2m EW T SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ERW SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS LOT 1 DP SS SS SS SS IL72.84 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS EXISTING SEWER TO BE ABANDONED PROPOSED NEW BUILDING FFL=73.39 SS IL m SS IL73.02 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS KIPLING AVENUE SS SS NEW DRIVEWAY EXISTING SEWER LINE TO BE DIVERTED T NEW LOADING BAY DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDING LOT 2 DP A FOR RESOURCE CONSENT MC FK TM No. Revision By Chk Appd Date Drawing Originator: Original Scale (A1) 1:125 Reduced Scale (A3) 1:250 Design Drawn Dsg Verifier Dwg Check F.Krause AUG '16' M.Carr AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature Approved For Client: Project: Construction* Date DO NOT SCALE KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED KIPLING ENDOSCOPY SS IL72.90 SSSS SS SS SS SS IL72.83 Title: EARTHWORKS CUT & FILL PLAN & CROSS SECTIONS RESOURCE CONSENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Discipline Drawing No. CIVIL CA Rev. A IF IN DOUBT ASK CA-0102.DWG Document No.

111 Drawing Plotted: 26 Aug :27 a.m. W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SS GILL N LEGEND: NOTE: < < < < W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION GATE SILT FENCE STABILISED ENTRANCEWAY DIRTY WATER CHANNEL 1. ALL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TP90 2. WATER CONTROL VIA CRACKS INTO BASALT (REFER GEOTECH REPORT) LOT 28 DP 3775 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS LOT 1 DP SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SS SS EW T SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS ERW LOT 1 DP < < < SS SS SS SS IL72.84 SS SS < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < SS SS SS RAMP DOWN SS SS SS IL < < < < < < < < < < SS IL73.02 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS KIPLING AVENUE DIRTY WATER CHANNELS T FORM 3mØ x 1m DEEP TEMPORARY SOAKAGE SUMP LINED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, BIDIM A29 OR SIMILAR APPROVED AND FILLED WITH AP20 DRAINAGE MATERIAL LOT 2 DP SSSS SS SS SS SS IL72.83 A FOR RESOURCE CONSENT MC FK TM No. Revision By Chk Appd Date Drawing Originator: Original Scale (A1) 1:125 Reduced Scale (A3) 1:250 Design Drawn Dsg Verifier Dwg Check F.Krause AUG '16' M.Carr AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature Approved For Client: Project: Construction* Date DO NOT SCALE KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED SS SS SS IL72.90 KIPLING ENDOSCOPY Title: EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN RESOURCE CONSENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Discipline Drawing No. CIVIL CA Rev. A IF IN DOUBT ASK CA-0103.DWG Document No.

112 Drawing Plotted: 26 Aug :27 a.m. N VEHICLE CROSSING DETAILED AS PER ATCOP GD T KIPLING AVENUE LEGEND: SW < < WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE OVERLAND FLOW PATH LOT 28 DP 3775 SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW LOT 1 DP SWALE TO CONVEY OVERLAND FLOW IN LARGE EVENTS SW SW SW < < SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW < SWALE TO CONVEY OVERLAND FLOW IN LARGE EVENTS SW < < < EW PED. PED. WALKWAY SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW < < < < < < EXISTING OLFP < < < < < SW SW SW SW SW ERW LOT 1 DP IL72.84 SW SW RAMP DOWN DRIVEWAY RAMP RAMP PROPOSED BUILDING SW SW SW SW SW IL m SW SW SW IL73.02 SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW OVERLAND DISCHARGE FOR LARGER FLOWS < < < < < < < < < < < < LOADING AREA AREA 4.0m T 300Ø PVC STORMWATER PIPE 3x1200Øx2.5m DEEP SOAKHOLES WITH 2x150Ø BORE & FILTER CAGE PER SOAKHOLE TO AT DETAIL RD050 & RD Ø MANHOLE WITH SCRUFFY DOME BUBBLE UP PIT LOT 2 DP A FOR RESOURCE CONSENT MC FK TM No. Revision By Chk Appd Date Drawing Originator: Original Scale (A1) 1:125 Reduced Scale (A3) 1:250 Design Drawn Dsg Verifier Dwg Check F.Krause AUG '16' M.Carr AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature < < < < < < Approved For Client: Project: Construction* Date DO NOT SCALE KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED SW IL72.90 < SW IL72.83 < < KIPLING ENDOSCOPY SW SW SW Title: STORMWATER PLAN (ON-SITE SOAKHOLE) RESOURCE CONSENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Discipline Drawing No. CIVIL CA Rev. A IF IN DOUBT ASK CA-0104.DWG Document No.

113 113

114 Drawing Plotted: 26 Aug :27 a.m. N LEGEND: > > > > AC GIS OVERLAND FLOW PATH ACTUAL OVERLAND FLOW PATH SUBJECT SITE PROPOSED OVERLAND FLOW PATH BRIGHTSIDE ROAD > > > > > > > GILLIES AVENUE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AA - AA - PROPOSED 1.2m x 0.1m ASPHALT HUMP TO FULL WIDTH OF ACCESS (SEE ABOVE) Lot 28 > > > > > > > ADJUST SLOPE OF ACCESSWAY TO MATCH HUMP PROPOSED ASPHALT HUMP N.T.S DP 3775 KIPLING AVENUE > Lot 1 DP > > > Lot 1 DP > L D A FOR RESOURCE CONSENT MC FK TM No. Revision By Chk Appd Date Drawing Originator: Original Scale (A1) 1:250 Reduced Scale (A3) 1:500 Design Drawn Dsg Verifier Dwg Check F.Krause AUG '16' M.Carr AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' T.Moulder AUG '16' * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature Approved For Client: Project: Construction* Date DO NOT SCALE KIPLING HOUSE LIMITED KIPLING ENDOSCOPY Lot 44 DP 4065 Title: OVERLAND FLOW PATH RESOURCE CONSENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Discipline Drawing No. CIVIL CA Rev. A IF IN DOUBT ASK CA-0106.DWG Document No.

115 KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY AND LAPAROSCOPY AUCKLAND COUNCIL Resource Consent Design Statement August Revision D 115

116 116

117 CONTENTS Summary... 4 Context analysis... 5 Location Map... 5 Zoning Map... 6 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan... 6 Existing Site Plan... 8 Neighbourhood analysis Natural and cultural environment Streetscape character...11 Use and activity Urban structure Opportunities and constraints analysis Design response Concept design Landscape Proposed Perspectives ARCHITECTS URBAN DESIGNERS INTERIOR DESIGNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Jasmax Ltd 2 Marston Street Parnell, Auckland 1052 PO Box 6648 Wellesley Street Auckland First Avenue Tauranga 3110 PO Box Tauranga Mail Centre Tauranga REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION A DEC 2015 RC ISSUE B JUNE 2016 RC ISSUE C JUNE 2016 RC ISSUE D AUGUST 2016 RC ISSUE Level 1 Grant Thornton House 215 Lambton Quay Wellington 6011 PO Box Wellington Riccarton Road Christchurch 8011 PO Box 8404 Riccarton Christchurch

118 Summary This design statement is written to support the resource consent application for 22 Kipling Ave, Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand. The statement has been prepared to help understand the site s context, identify existing elements of the site and interrelationships between different factors which affect the site. It also presents the design process undertaken in preparing a development proposal. This statement is to be read in conjunction with the Heritage Assessment & Site and Context Analysis prepared by Archifact Architecture & Conservation Ltd, dated June That report covers such areas as streetscape and neighbourhood character, and consequently this Design Statement refers to, rather than repeating or duplicating those elements. KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D 4 118

119 Context analysis Location Map The site is located within the suburb of Epsom, approximately 3.5km to the south of Auckland CBD, and approximately 1km east of Maungawhau / Mt Eden. The site is on the south side of Kipling Avenue, which runs in an east-west direction between the major roads of Manukau Road and Gillies Avenue. AUCKLAND CBD AUCKLAND DOMAIN 3 400M RADIUS CENTRED ON SITE MT EDEN CORNWALL PARK 0 1.0km 2.5km 5.0km 1: KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D 5 119

120 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan The adjacent plan illustrates the planning zones of the immediate area from the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30th September 2013). The site lies within the Mixed Housing (Suburban) zone. The intended character of this zone is as follows: View Road 1.5 Mixed Housing Suburban zone Zone description This zone is the most widespread residential zone in Auckland. Its density controls allow a moderate level of intensification, while retaining a relatively spacious quality consistent with a suburban residential character, compared to the Mixed Housing Urban and Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zones. Development within the zone will generally be two storey detached and attached housing in a variety of types and sizes to provide housing choice. Horoeka Avenue Sherbourne Road Sherbourne Road Bellevue R oad Esplanade Road Esplanade Road Puka Street Percy Street Clive Road Castle Drive Glenfell Place Omana Avenue Mountain Road Gilgit Road Almorah Road Wit h iel Drive Albury Avenue e Road Sharp Gillies Avenue Clovernook Road Alpers Avenue Broadway Nuffield Street Mahuru Street St Marks Road St Marks Road On Ramp Mauranui Avenue Ely A Remuera Road Macmurray Road venu e Dilworth Avenue Bassett Road Pere Street B uttle Street Ridings Road Arney Road Crocu Dunholme Road Warrin Prosp Henley Road ect Terrace Charlton Avenue The zone encourages new housing types, including attached housing on smaller sites facing the street. To facilitate the efficient use of these sites and promote quality design outcomes, when assessed through the resource consent process, dwellings may have building bulk closer to site boundaries, provided that shading and dominance effects on adjoining sites are minimised. Through the resource consent process, four or more dwellings at a higher density may be built on large sites with wide road frontages. This is because larger sites are capable of accommodating a wider range of housing types, integrating development into the neighbourhood and achieving high quality on-site amenity M RADIUS CENTRED ON SITE Pentland Avenue Tarata Street A shto n Road Grange Road Fairview Road Woodside Road Kingsview Road Lovelock Avenue Valley Road Essex Road Ngauruhoe Street Batger Road Mount Eden Road Pencarrow Avenue Rautangi Road Oaklands Road Stokes Road Poronui Street Gar r y Road Windm Puhi H uia Road ill Road Disraeli Street Cecil Road St Andrews Road Marama Avenue Kohia Terrace Shipherds Avenue Brightside Road Ranfurly Road West Epsom Avenue Woodhall Road Ranfurly Road Owens Road Kipling Avenue Domett Avenue Bracken Avenue Inverary Avenue Kimberley Road Manukau Road Margot Street Warborough Avenue Halifax Avenue Griffin Avenue Ngaire Avenue Clyde Street Belvedere Street Erin Street Market Road Southern Motorway Mount St John Avenue W a piti Avenue Mount Hobson Road Highwic Avenue Market Road Off Ramp Dunkerron Avenue Cornwall Park Avenue Wapiti Avenue Southern Motorway Korau Road Patey Street Karetu Road Great South Road Market Road Market Road Off Ramp Aratonga Avenue West Drom Om O m 1:10000 KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D 6 120

121 Objectives 1. Housing choice within neighbourhoods is increased. 2. Development is of a height, bulk, form and appearance that positively responds to the site and the neighbourhood s planned suburban residential character, engaging with and addressing the street. 3. Development provides high-quality on-site amenity for residents and achieves a reasonable standard of amenity for adjoining sites. 4. Development is adequately serviced by network infrastructure and is of a density that is appropriate for the physical attributes of the site and any infrastructure constraints. Policies 1.Enable a variety of detached and attached housing types. 2.Manage the height, bulk, form and appearance of development and require sufficient setbacks and landscaped areas to maintain a suburban residential character of generally two storeys. 3.Require development to be of a height and bulk that allows immediate neighbours to have a reasonable standard of sunlight access and privacy and to avoid excessive dominance effects. 4.Enable attached housing on smaller sites where the development faces the street and integrates well into the neighbourhood. 5.Require dwellings to be designed to: a.have usable and accessible outdoor living space b.provide privacy and outlook c.be of a size, have access to daylight and sunlight and provide the amenities necessary to meet the day-to-day needs of residents. 6.Require development to be designed, with a particular emphasis on those parts of the dwelling visible from the street to: a.create visual interest b.face the street and maximise passive surveillance of it c.minimise the dominance of garage doors visible from the street. 7.Limit the density and scale of development to take account of one or more of the following factors: a.achieving a balance between making the most efficient use of the site and providing high-quality on-site amenity b.the proportions or topography of the site or the width of its road frontage mean that it is not possible to maximise development without generating unreasonable adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining sites and the surrounding area c.any infrastructure constraints. 8.Require development to have available connections to water supply and wastewater networks. Public Open Space Business Residential Historic Heritage Neighbourhood Centre Local Centre Town Centre Metropolitan Centre City Centre Mixed Use General Business Business Park Light Industry Heavy Industry # Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Ç Precincts & Sub-Precincts High Outstanding The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Coastal Natural Character Areas [rps/rcp/dp] Outstanding Natural Features [ rps/rcp/dp ] Local Public Views # Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua [dp/rcp] Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua [ dp/rcp ]! Historic Heritage Place [ dp/rcp ] E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Single House Mixed Housing Urban Mixed Housing Suburban Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Large Lot For more information refer to: Built Environment Natural Heritage Rural and Coastal Settlement Public Open Space - Conservation Public Open Space - Informal Recreation Public Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation Public Open Space - Community Public Open Space - Civic Spaces 12.5m Additional Height Controls Outstanding Natural Landscape [ rps/rcp/dp ] V V V V V V Extent of Volcanic Viewshafts [ rps ] V V V Volcanic Viewshafts & Blanket Height Sensitive Areas [ rps/dp ] To be read in conjunction with viewshaft contour Height layer in GIS viewer or diagrams within the text Sensitive Areas Key Retail Frontage General Commercial Frontage Additional Subdivision Controls City Centre Fringe Office Indicative Road Indicative Open Space Ridgeline Protection ««««««Air Quality Transport Corridor Separation Industry Transition Sensitive Activity Restriction Special Character Historic Heritage Extent of Place [ dp/rcp ] Pre 1944 Building Demolition Control Auckland Museum Viewshaft Building Frontage (notified 30 September 2013) Indicative Roads & Open Space Heavy Industry Air Quality Rural Coastal New Growth Key to Abbreviations of Provisions Infrastructure Coastal Transition Defence General Coastal Marine [ rcp ] Ferry Terminal [ rcp/dp ] Marina [ rcp/dp ] Minor Port [ rcp/dp ] Mooring [ rcp ] Indicative Stream [i] ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Aquifer [ rp ] ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Natural hazards - Coastal Inundation Ì Ì ÌÌ Ì ÌÌ ÌÌ Ì Ì Ì ÌÌ ÌÌ ÌÌ Ì Ì Ì U U U U U U U É É É U U U U U U U E EÉ E EÉ E EÉ E E E E E E E E X X X X X X X Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì ÌÌ ÌÌ Ì Ì ÌÌ ÌÌ Ì Ì E E E E E E E E E E E E Land [ rps/rp ] Marine 1 [ rps/rcp ] Marine 2 [ rps/rcp ] Natural Stream Management Area High Use Stream Management Area Natural Urban Flow 1 G G G G G G G G G G G G Rural Production Rural Coastal Rural Conservation Mixed Rural Countryside Living Future Urban Special Purpose Strategic Transport Corridor Water [ i ] Indicative Coastline [ i ] Rural Urban Boundary [ rps ] Arterial Road Parking Designations Airspace Restriction Designations Airport Approach Paths Level Crossings with Sightline Controls Quarry Buffer Area Quarry Transport Route Electricity Transmission Corridor Aircraft Noise ) ) ) ) ) ) ) General Green Infrastructure Corridor City Centre Port Noise High Land Transport Route Noise Adjacent to Level Crossings " " " " " Motorway Interchange Control Flow 2 Lake Management Area Stormwater Management Area W W W W W W Water Supply Management Area W W W W W W ZONING [ rps ] = Regional Policy Statement [ rcp ] = Regional Coastal Plan [ rp ] = Regional Plan [ i ] = Information only [ dp ] = District Plan (only used to depict dual provisions. Otherwise, District Plan is the default category, i.e. no abbreviation) [rps/rcp] (or any other combination using /) = dual provisions OVERLAYS Significant Ecological Areas Designations Vehicle Access Restrictions [ rp ] [ rp ] [ rp ] [ rp ] [ rp ] KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D 7 121

122 LEGAL DESCR Existing Site Plan #24 LOT 1 DP Area 1250m2 CT NA453/113 TERRITORIAL The adjacent plan identifies the location and extent of the site subject of the application. The site survey plan on the following sheet identifies the following: boundaries and road names, legal description, street number, site area and dimensions. position of adjoining sites including legal description and street number existing site contours, spot levels and 1m contours including relationship with surrounding properties and the road existing boundary treatments including fences and retaining walls (location, material and heights) existing vegetation on the site footprint of all existing buildings on the site(s) and any outdoor living space footprint of existing buildings on adjoining sites and any outdoor living space and position of habitable room windows that have an outlook to the site #146 # ' 30" BDY 53.61m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 LOT 1 DP ' 30" BDY 54.35m #20 #20a #20b #18 Auckland City ZONE Residential 6a SITE AREA 1250m2 EXISTING BUI 33% WIND ZONE LOW OTHER E05-09 VIEW P VOLCANIC VIE AFFECTED AR position of existing services including overhead lines, gas, power, telephone, watermains, sewers, drainage systems (wastewater, stormwater, on-site devices and drains, invert and manhole lid levels), nearest fire hydrant #20c #24 road carriageway, footpath, berm widths, existing vehicle crossings, pedestrian access and access roads location of street features and furniture including power poles, bus shelters, street trees, street lights, signs, on-street parking. important views to, through and from the site (e.g. to bodies of water, volcanic cones, historic heritage places, other landscape features and prominent buildings) - Refer also Neighbourhood Analysis on page 9. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 DP Area 1250m2 #148 CT NA453/113 TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY REVISIONS A Resource Consent ' 0" BDY 23.16m ' 30" BDY 23.16m #22 #20 Auckland City Council ZONE Residential 6a 11 57' 30" BDY 53.61m LOT 1 DP ' 30" BDY 54.35m #20b #20a #18 SITE AREA 1250m2 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE 33% WIND ZONE LOW 2 OTHER 1 : 200 Plan EXISTING LOCATION PLAN E05-09 VIEW PROTECTION - VOLCANIC VIEW CONE AFFECTED AREA 9/11/ :07:04 PM C:\Revit\22 Kipling Avenue_Bojana.Kavrakovska@jasmax.com.rvt ARCHITECTS URBAN DESIGNERS INTERIOR DESIGNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Jasmax Ltd #20c m 1:500 2 Marston Street Parnell Auckland 1052 PO Box 6648 Wellesley Street Auckland 1141 t: Victoria Street Dominion Building Wellington 6011 PO Box Manners Street KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D 8 122

123 77.0 KIPLING AVE CENTERLINE NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE IN TERMS OF MT EDEN GEODETIC 2000 CIRCUT ORIGIN (CGQT) mN mE mE mE mE 2. LEVELS ARE IN TERMS OF AUCKLAND MSL DATUM ORIGIN OF LEVELS (CGQW) RL m 3. BOUNDARIES SUBJECT TO FINAL CADASTRAL REDEFINITION SURVEY. 4. BOUNDARIES IN TERMS OF LAND ON LINE XML FILE AS AT 17/04/2012 AND VERIFIED BY COMPUTATION. Lot 28 DP m² LEGEND : 78.0 EXISTING SS 78.0 MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR BANK TOP BANK TOE BUILDING FACE Lot 1 DP m² # 24 H=7m DRIPLINE BUILDING FENCE TREE MANHOLE CESSPIT Lot 44 DP m² EAVE CONNECTION NOT FOUND X BUILDING FACE EAVE AC mN WATERMETER STAKE ON BDY STAKED DOWNPIPE GULLY TRAP GATE POWER POLE TELECOM UNKNOWN ROUND COVER OVERHEAD POWER LINE SPOT LEVEL WATER EXISTING SW WINDOWS WITH UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW TOWARSD SITE WINDOWS WITH OBSTRUCTED OR DISTANT VIEW TOWARDS SITE 150Ø WASTEWATER PIPE PLOTTED FROM COUNCIL RECORD 75.0 COL COL GARDEN EDGE COL IL SWMH LL SUMP LL LL IL Ø METAL AREA COL 100Ø 225Ø IL CABBAGE TREE H=4m CABBAGE TREE H=4.5m STEPS CABBAGE TREE H=6.5m IL IL SSMH LL ' CABBAGE TREE H=4m WOODEN FENCE 2m HIGH H=10m H=9m IL GRASSED AREA IL (2 x 100 PIPE) OLD BDY DISK ON TOP OF POST FROM COUNCIL RECORD 150Ø WASTEWATER PIPE PLOTTED EAVE STONE RETAINING WALL GRASSED AREA SHRUB H=3m SHRUB H=4m 100Ø PIPE IL EAVE DD SSIC LL ' 30" EAVE 11 57' 30" WOODEN RETAINING WALL Lot 1 DP m² NA453/ FL: BUILDING BASE EAVE DECK SEALED DRIVEWAY WOODEN FENCE 2m HIGH FENCE GRASSED AREA H=7m STEPS GRASSED AREA # ' 30" PLOTTED FROM COUNCIL RECORD STAKED H=4m H=7m H=6m SEALED AND IN USE Ø AC PLOTTED FROM COUNCIL RECORD mN 50 EAVE EAVE H=6m 150Ø WASTEWATER PIPE PLOTTED FROM COUNCIL RECORD BUILDING BASE BUILDING BASE BUILDING BASE Lot 2 DP # m 00/00/00 SCALE 1:250 CLIENT Laparoscopy Auckland Limited REV DATE REVISION DETAILS APPROVED B 10/05/12 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION G.MUNNS A 30/04/12 FOR INFORMATION G.MUNNS DRAWN DESIGNED J. BASHOURI B.McGHIE CHECKED S.XIA APPROVED DATE PROJECT 22 KIPLING AVE, EPSOM TITLE TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY FOR INFORMATION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT No SCALE 1:250 DRAWING No. 123 SIZE A3 REV B

124 Neighbourhood analysis Natural and cultural environment The adjacent plan indicates: predominant landscape and landform character including ridge lines topography using 1m contour intervals local hydrology - overland flow paths, flood plains and flood prone areas* view cone height controls to Mt Eden (Maungawhau). * Refer to Geotech report dated June 2016 SITE CONTOURS FLOOD PLAIN FLOOD PRONE AREAS VOLCANIC CONE HEIGHT CONTROL - MT ST JOHNS AVE VOLCANIC CONE HEIGHT CONTROL - HIGHLAND PARK m 1:2500 KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D

125 Streetscape character The Heritage Assessment & Site and Context Analysis prepared by Archifact Architecture & Conservation Ltd, dated June 2016 (subsequently referred to as the Heritage Assessment Report ) provides a comprehensive assessment of the existing streetscape, particularly in Section The following statements is taken from the Executive Summary of the Heritage Assessment Report. The properties situated within the streetscape area portray an eclectic assortment of architectural forms. The subject site is located on the southern side of Kipling Avenue at the western end. The property is atypical of the residential units that make up the street as found today. The place is a heavily modified villa with a crudely executed first storey addition, and sitting deep within its site the building addresses the street through a comparatively open boundary treatment. In assessing the existing property against the objectives within the PAUP, it is considered that the subject building does not contribute strongly to the distinctive quality of the neighbourhood s planned suburban residential character given its lack of architectural value, modified appearance, and reduced presence to the street resulting from its deep set-back. For this reason it is considered that the subject building makes only a moderate contribution to the perceived character of the streetscape. Extract from Heritage Assessment Report - Streetscape study area boundary Extract from Heritage Assessment Report - View looking east along Kipling Ave Extract from Heritage Assessment Report - View looking west along Kipling Ave KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D

126 Extract from Heritage Assessment Report - Streetscape study area boundary KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D

127 Extract from Heritage Assessment Report - Streetscape study area boundary KIPLING AVE ENDOSCOPY & LAPAROSCOPY // RESOURCE CONSENT DESIGN STATEMENT / AUGUST 2016 / REVISION D