TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL HEARINGS COMMITTEE. To rezone land from Residential 4 to Industrial L. SITE: 8 Doncaster Street, Timaru - Pt Lot 33 DP 3363

Transcription

1 TIMARU DISTRICT COUNCIL HEARINGS COMMITTEE DECISION ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE NO. 8 APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Alexander Sutherland Hogg To rezone land from Residential 4 to Industrial L SITE: 8 Doncaster Street, Timaru - Pt Lot 33 DP 3363 CURRENT ZONING: Residential 4 SUBMISSIONS: 2 in opposition 5 further submissions THE DECISION In accordance with clause 29(4) of Part Two of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, the request by Alexander Sutherland Hogg to rezone 8 Doncaster Street, Timaru - Pt Lot 33 DP 3363 is approved and the that submissions by CM Benny and others (1/1) and R W and J B Mills (2/1) be rejected and that further submissions by D M Brien (F1/1 and F1/2), A W and J M Hendry (F2/1), D K and P D Malcolm (F3/1 and F3/2), P D Malcolm and M J Suckling (F4/1 and F4/2), R P Simmons (F5/1 and F5/2) and R J Williams (F6/1) be accepted. REASONS FOR THE DECISION Under clause 29(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Hearings Committee are of the opinion that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the actual and potential effects on the environment of the proposal are no more than minor; the proposal in not contrary to the objectives and policies of the Timaru District Plan; there are no relevant national or regional policy statements or plans; and that any adverse environmental effects of the proposal on the visual and amenity and quality of the surrounding environment will be no more than minor. THE PROPOSAL The applicant requests that his property at 8 Doncaster Street, Timaru be rezoned from Residential 4 to Industrial L. The site covers 1.49 hectares in area and is located on the western side of Doncaster Street. The applicant and his family currently reside in a dwelling on the site. The site is one of approximately 12 residential lifestyle blocks in

2 2 the vicinity of Martin and Doncaster Streets. A similar rezoning proposal for an adjoining site at 10 Laughton Street was approved in late The Industrial L Zone extends along the north side of Washdyke Flat Road from State Highway 1 to Laughton Street and northwards up to Martin Street. A strip of Industrial L zoned land extends along a portion of the southern side of Washdyke Flat Road. This means that sites immediately east of the subject site are zoned Industrial L as is a land to the south of the site. Land to the west is zoned Recreation 2. Land immediately north of the subject site is zoned Residential 4. The Plan Change was lodged with the District Council on 15 June At its meeting on 31 July 2007 the Resource Planning and Regulation Committee accepted the private plan change request. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE Evidence in support of the request was presented by Neil Sheerin of Opus International Consultants Ltd on behalf of Mr Hogg and Mr Robert Mills and Ms Christine Benny presented evidence in opposition to the request. 1 Evidence presented on behalf of the applicant by Mr Neil Sheerin Mr Sheerin explained the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 providing for any person that may request a plan change. Clause 22 states that requests must explain the purpose and reasons for the request, assess environmental effects, taking into account the provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the RMA and an evaluation under section 32 of any objectives, policies, rules or other matters. Explanation of the Proposed Plan Change Mr Sheerin explained the request involves the rezoning of the subject site and reliance on the existing provisions of the Industrial L Zone. He described the location of the site and the nature of zoning in adjoining the subject site. Mr Sheerin proposed that the site is suitable for industrial development due to its proximity to Industrial zoned land, the presence of existing services and because of the reduced level of amenity the District Plan recognises within the Residential 4 Zone. He suggested that demand for industrial sites within the Washdyke area is likely to increase over time as the existing supply diminishes. The change of zoning will enable the local community to provide for its social and economic wellbeing by ensuring there is adequate Industrial land to meet demand. District Plan provisions will ensure that any adverse environmental effects are addressed. Assessment of effects of the proposed plan change Mr Sheerin referred to the case Brown v Dunedin CC ([2003] NZRMA 420) which stated it was found that it may be appropriate to assess effects if a site specific plan change request, such as this proposal, on other properties or on the District as a whole and concluded that it was appropriate to assess the actual and potential effects on the environment of substituting the provisions for the Residential 4 Zone with those of the Industrial L Zone. Consistent with the approach taken in Terrace Tower v Queenstown Lakes District Council (C111/00) Mr Sheerin assessed the relevant zone purpose, objectives and policies beginning with the purpose of the Residential 4 Zone (p69) and Industrial L (p160) Zone. He concluded that the District Plan

3 3 recognises that the amenity of the Residential 4 Zone is not expected to be as high as other residential zones because of the proximity of the Industrial L Zone. Mr Sheerin stated that visual amenity is a key aspect of amenity in the Residential 4 Zone, which the District Plan seeks to maintain through building setbacks and landscape screening of sites adjoining the Industrial L Zone. He acknowledged that the District Plan recognises that there will be a limit to the extent that visual amenity can practicably be maintained because of the proximity of the Residential 4 to the Industrial L Zone and as a consequence the Plan appears to seek to mitigate adverse effects rather than avoiding of remedying them. However, he noted that the Plan only intends to provide for activities in the Industrial L Zone that have minor to moderate environmental effects. Zone Objectives Mr Sheerin suggested the relevant objectives for the Residential Zones are Objectives (p67); (p71), and (p73), and the relevant objectives for the Industrial Zones are (p159) and (p159). He concluded that the Residential Zone objectives place an emphasis on maintaining amenity and Industrial L Zone objectives are consistent with this as they seek to ensure compatibility with adjoining land uses and the management of adverse effects. Zone Policies Relevant Residential Zone policies identified by Mr Sheerin included Policies (p67), (P67), (p71) and (p73) and Industrial Zone policies include (p160), (p161) and (p161). He suggested that the Residential Zone policies cited placed an emphasis on residential amenity and character, primarily through managing visual, noise and traffic effects and the types of non-residential activities able to locate in this zone. Mr Sheerin commented that the relevant Industrial Zone policies seek to manage the type of industry locating beside residential and other sensitive land uses and to manage the use of industrially zoned land to address adverse effects on adjoining land uses. He concluded that effects from any activities locating on the site will not be more than minor. He also noted that the officer s report concluded that the proposal will be neither inconsistent nor contrary to any District Plan policies which he supported. Zone Performances Standards Mr Sheerin compared the relevant performance standards for the Residential 4 and Industrial L Zones. For sunlight, outlook and visual amenity he concluded that any potential adverse effects were adequately compensated through a combination of recessions plane, building setbacks, landscaping and site and screening requirements. There is a performance standard providing of open space in the Residential 4 Zone (p96). Development in the Industrial L Zone (p171) must comply with General Rule 6.19 for Landscaping. Mr Sheerin suggested that as the landscaping requirement is extensive this will more that adequately maintain the amenity of the subject site and its environs. Mr Sheerin commented that the rules controlling the amount of light spill for both the Residential 4 (pp ) and Industrial L zones (p96) are virtually

4 4 identical and consequently the adoption of the proposed plan change is likely to result in little change to existing levels of amenity. As the District Plan contains similar performance standards for traffic safety Mr Sheerin considers there will be little change to existing traffic safety levels at intersections as a result of the rezoning. Services (Water, Sewer, Stormwater) Mr Sheerin explained activities in the Residential 4 Zone must comply with General Rule 6.5 regarding the provision of water, sewer and stormwater services but that similar requirements are not made in the Industrial L Zone however Industrial Zone Policy refers to providing for industrial activities while having regard to the location of services especially sewerage and water supply. He also noted that Section 9 of Part B of the District Plan (Services and Other Physical Resources) has objectives and policies aimed at ensuring the satisfactory provision of services. Mr Sheerin said that in verbal communications with the Drainage and Water Manager for the Council it was indicated that the existing water and sewage mains along Washdyke Flat Road and Laughton Street are likely to be adequate. There are also stormwater mains along Laughton Street and along part of Washdyke Flat Road but that the capacity of these mains to service future development on the site would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. He indicated that onsite treatment of stormwater waste is likely to be required before discharge to the Council s stormwater system and that there is adequate land available of the 1.49 hectare site to accommodate such a requirement. He concluded that the proposal is unlikely to result in any adverse effects on water, sewer and stormwater services and noted that the officer s report generally concluded that existing services were adequate and that he supported this conclusion. Vehicle Access, Loading and Parking Both the Residential 4 and Industrial L Zones require compliance with General Rules 6.7 (Vehicle Access) and 6.8 (Parking). Mr Sheerin commented that the large site is expected to have sufficient area to enable compliance with the vehicle access, loading and parking requirements. He also noted that the District Plan includes a roading hierarchy which ranked Washdyke Flat Road as a Principle Road and comments that the District Plan contemplates that this road is intended to cater for the level of traffic anticipated from an industrial site and that the proposal is therefore consistent with the District Plan. Mr Sheerin detailed advice he received from Transit New Zealand on the proposed improvements to intersections in the vicinity if the subject site which include: (a) Signalisation of the State Highway 1/SH 8 intersection; (b) Signalisation of the SH 1/Seadown Rd intersection; and (c) Left turn in/left turn out only at the SH1/Washdyke Flat Road intersection. He went on to explain the benefits to traffic moving to and from the site under Transit s proposed improvements and concluded that this changes would complement the function of the existing roads serving the subject site and significantly improve the functioning of the local network. However he stated

5 5 that he did not consider that the proposed rezoning was dependent on the Transit upgrades for mitigation of the adverse effects of traffic associated with industrial use of the subject site. He also noted that the Officer s report indicated that the Council was proposing improvements to Laughton Street to address increased traffic volumes resulting from Transit s proposed upgrade. Cumulative Effects Mr Sheerin acknowledged that should this plan change be adopted by the Council that it may generate similar plan change requests for other sites in the Residential 4 Zone. However he suggested that should this occur that any adverse environmental effects would be no more than minor for the reasons previously stated in his evidence. Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Mr Sheerin explained that the RPS provided an overview of the resource management issues in the region. He explained that based on his earlier evidence, which assessed the proposed plan change as consistent with the relevant objectives, policies and performance standards in the District Plan he concluded that rezoning the subject site would not render the District Plan inconsistent with the RPS. He noted that the officer s report generally concludes that the proposal is neither inconsistent with nor contrary to the policies of the RPS. Section 32 of the RMA Mr Sheerin summarised the requirements of the section 32 of the RMA for an evaluation for any objectives, policies, rules or other methods proposed as part of the proposed plan change and explained that no new provisions of this nature were proposed. He said that the District Plan has been operative since March 2005, and that it was subject to a section 32 assessment prior to notification and was subject to further evaluation by way of submissions, further submissions and hearing before the Council and the Environment Court. He noted that he has carried out an evaluation of the actual and potential adverse effects of substituting the purpose, objectives, policies and performance standards of the Residential 4 Zone with the Industrial L Zone in the earlier part of his evidence and reiterated that as in the case of Brown v Dunedin CC cited earlier, section 32 does not contemplate that determining a site specific plan change will not involve the comparison of alternative sites and consequently no evaluation of alternative sites has been undertaken as part of this proposal. Consultation Undertaken Mr Sheerin suggested those persons with the greatest potential to be affected are in the Residential 4 Zone but the others in the Industrial L, Rural 2 and Recreation 2 Zones may be affected. He indicated that no formal consultation had taken place prior to the lodgement of the plan change request however he noted that while Clause 1AA of the Fourth Schedule to the RMA does oblige the applicant to identify persons affected by the proposal it does not oblige the applicant to consult with any persons identified as being affected or create any grounds for expecting the applicant to consult with any person. Mr Sheerin then described the nature of the consultation following lodgement of the plan change request including public notification on 25 August 2007, closing of submissions on 21 September 2007, receipt of two submissions including

6 6 one signed by 17 persons residing at 9 different addresses, public notification of a summary of submissions on 13 October 2007 and the closing of further submissions on 12 November With six further submissions being received from 10 persons residing at 6 different addresses. He then referred to the reasons given in the submission for opposing the proposal as noise, safety and increased traffic flow and stated he was unsure as to what the safety concern refers to and said he assumed it related to the possible increase in heavy traffic from any future industrial use of the site. He then explained the location and separation distances between submitters and the subject site. He suggested that the proximity of their properties to the existing Industrial L Zone forms a permitted baseline for their properties as far as environmental effects are concerned. He concluded by saying that he thought that any future industrial development of the subject site is unlikely to generate significant adverse effects for the submission signatories, and that any effects are likely to be minor. He then stated he supported the Officer s recommendation that the submissions by declined and the six further submissions be accepted. Council Officer s Report Mr Sheerin noted that he had already commented on the Officer s report throughout his evidence and concluded that he strongly supported the overall recommendation that the site be rezoned from Residential 4 to Industrial L for the reasons discussed in his evidence. 2 Submission and Evidence by Ms Christine Benny and Others Two submissions were received one of which was signed by 17 persons residing at 9 different addresses. Six further submissions were received in opposition to the two original submissions. Representatives of both original submitters represented the submitters at the hearing and provided evidence. Mr Mills presented written evidence and outlined why they purchased the property and their opposition to the plan change including the issues associated with activities that occur on industrial zoned properties including the burning of rubbish. He was also concerned about the increase in traffic on Martin Street and Doncaster Street. Mr Mills also outlined that he is of the view that there is not the need for further Industrial L zoned land given the land and buildings that are currently for sale. Mr Mills also commented on particular aspects of Mr Sheerin s evidence. Ms Benny presented evidence to the Committee stating that the residents were extremely concerned that if the site was rezoned as Industrial that traffic flows would increase dramatically. She explained that in the absence of footpaths in this area local residents had to walk on road verges where in some places vehicles were parked. She noted that some residents were elderly, and there are children walking to catch school buses. She outlined her concerns about rubbish fires and concerns over noise and hours of operation of activities in the area. Ms Benny also explained the rezoning would compromise their lifestyle and requested that the rezoning be declined. Evidence was also presented questioning the need for further industrial zoned land.

7 7 ASSESSMENT The Hearings Committee have reached their decision after considering the request, visiting the site, evaluating the evidence heard at the hearing and submission and the report prepared by the reporting planner, and all the relevant statutory and planning provisions, as well as the principal issues that were in contention. The information gathered is now evaluated. The Hearings Committee also noted the concerns raised in evidence from the submitters regarding matters such as burning and other matters of non-compliance with activities in the Industrial L Zone. The Committee have referred these matters to staff to follow up and monitor. Noise Increased noise emissions from the subject site are anticipated in association with any future industrial use of the subject site should it be rezoned Industrial L however compliance will be required with the Performance Standards for Noise in the Industrial L Zone rules. This will provide a degree of protection to those submitters who reside in the Residential 4 Zone. Noise standards do not apply to traffic associated with the subject site. Traffic generation is anticipated to increase with future industrial use of the site and to produce more noise emissions than is currently generated by traffic to the existing residential activity. While ambient noise levels are anticipated to increase in the vicinity of the subject site the Committee are of the opinion that any affects will be no more than minor. Traffic Traffic volumes in the vicinity of the subject site are anticipated to increase with the change of zoning, however the Hearings Committee are of the opinion that any adverse effects on the local road network of the proposed rezoning will be no more than minor. Safety District Plan controls on vehicle access, loading and manoeuvring together with the proposed roading improvements by Transit New Zealand and the Council in the vicinity of the subject site are anticipated to address potential traffic safety issues. Safety issues associated with the use, storage and transportation of hazardous substances are addressed by way of controls under the District Plan and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act The Committee concludes that any adverse effects associated with the safety in the vicinity of the subject site will be no more than minor. Sewer, Stormwater and Water The existing sewer service is adequate for a light dry industry, however the level of the sewer mains could impose limitations on the extent of the site that could be serviced by a gravity system. The subject site was not included in the original stormwater runoff design for this area. A change of zone to Industrial may trigger the need for a resource consent from Environment Canterbury for water quantity and the quality of stormwater as there is no

8 8 integrated stormwater catchment management plan for this area and the network to which the development could discharge flows into a waterway. Assuming any development to be a dry industry there appears to be an adequate supply of water available. Providing the future industrial use of the subject site is by dry industries, the Committee concludes that any adverse environmental effects will be no more than minor. DISTRICT PLAN: OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The key policies in the District Plan are considered in terms of the proposed rezoning. Policy (Residential Zones) Policy describes the Residential 4 Zone at Washdyke as having amenity values. of as high a standard as is compatible with its location near an industrial area. This policy indicates that residences in close proximity to the Industrial L Zone affects the amenity that residences can expect within this Residential Zone but provides a measure of protection to activities in the Industrial Zone. Resource consent must be obtained for new household units (including alterations to existing household units) so that traffic circulation, landscaping and screen planting can be assessed and conditions imposed where appropriate. Policy will continue to provide guidance to the establishment of residential activities in the adjoining Residential 4 Zone under the proposed rezoning of the subject site. The Committee concludes that the proposed rezoning is not inconsistent with Policy Policy (Industrial Zones) This policy promotes the use (of) zones to provide for industrial activities in appropriate locations having regard to: - location of existing industry - continuity with previous zoning controls - location of services especially sewerage and water supply - adjoining residential and other sensitive land uses - transportation links (the roading hierarchy, port, and rail) - the versatility of land - need for expansion to be provided for the life of the District Plan Industrial L: which is intended to provide for industrial activities having minor to moderate environmental effects and that these effects should be mitigated for neighbouring zones to the extent that is practical. The Committee note that the Industrial L Zone establishes higher standards than the Industrial H Zone and gives recognition to adjoining residential areas. This recognition takes the form of rules that control noise emissions and amenity controls for bulk and location, screening of storage areas and controls on light spill in respect of Residential Zones, as well as requirements for landscaping along road frontages. The protection provided under this zoning is consistent with that currently enjoyed by submitters under

9 9 the District Plan and will continue to experience under the proposed rezoning. The Committee concludes that the proposed rezoning of the site as Industrial L is consistent with Policy The Committee also note that the subject site is bounded on two sides by the Industrial L Zone and suggest the proposed rezoning appears to be a logical extension of the Industrial L Zone. Regional Policy Statement Chapter 12 of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) fro Canterbury identifies the following key provision: Policy 1 Promote settlement and transport patterns and built environments that will: (a) result in increasingly effective and efficient use of resources, particularly energy (b) reduce the rate of use of non-renewable energy sources (c) minimise the adverse effects of emissions into the atmosphere resulting from the use of motor vehicles and building heating (d) incorporate energy efficient approaches to building orientation, form and design (p189; RPS) Along its eastern and southern boundaries the subject site adjoins the Industrial L Zone on. Services including water, sewerage, stormwater and roads adjoin the subject site. The Committee believes the proposed rezoning will result in increasingly effective and efficient use of resources and that the proposal is consistent with Policy 1. The Committee concludes that the proposed rezoning is not inconsistent with the Regional Policy Statement. DECISION Under clause 29(4) of Part 2 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Hearings Committee approves the request by Alexander Sutherland Hogg to rezone 8 Doncaster Street, Timaru - Pt Lot 33 DP 3363 is approved and that planning map 25 be amended and the that submissions by CM Benny and others (1/1) and R W and J B Mills (2/1) be rejected and that further submissions by D M Brien (F1/1 and F1/2), A W and J M Hendry (F2/1), D K and P D Malcolm (F3/1 and F3/2), P D Malcolm and M J Suckling (F4/1 and F4/2), R P Simmons (F5/1 and F5/2) and R J Williams (F6/1) be accepted HEARINGS COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON Date