Posts Tagged ‘Parsons Paddock’

Summerset Retirement Village Resource Consent Declined

31 July 2018

We have received news that the application for resource consent for the Summerset retirement village on Parsons Paddock has been declined. The application was refused by commissioners after the hearing in June. The overall conclusion summary is posted below and you can read the full decision here. Panel chairman Mark Farnsworth said in the decision there was a general agreement that the site would be suitable for a retirement village but the panel found the proposed development would result in adverse effects which did not sufficiently balance the benefits. We look forward to modifications Summerset may make to the proposal and welcome good quality, well considered and sympathetic developments in our area. Thanks goes to Summerset for presenting twice to our monthly meetings and front-footing engagement with our community.

Resource Consent Application Hearing for Summerset Development on Parsons Paddock

29 May 2018

The resource consent application hearing date for the Summerset Retirement Village at St Johns Road and Ripon Crescent will start at 9:30am on Thursday 14 June, at the Council Chamber, Auckland Town Hall. The hearing continues on Friday 15 and Monday 18 June, and may involve a site visit.

Summerset presented their plans to two very well attended MSJRA meetings, in 2016 and 2017. Many of you commented favourably about their meaningful and constructive engagement with the community. Summerset also, commendably, requested full notification of their resource consent application.

At those meetings, and subsequently, we found no consensus on which to base a collective submission on behalf of our association.

There was a range of views expressed: support generally for the prospect of additional accommodation of this type in our area (for which evidently there is growing demand) and the benefit it may have for our Town Centre and community, and positive commentary on the architecture and site design. There were concerns about the height and/or bulk of the main block along the eastern edge by St Johns bush, especially with it being on the ridge skyline, and there was concern about traffic management during construction. Understandably, direct neighbours had particular concerns. As we always do, we encouraged residents to have their say, and publicised how and when to make a submission. Quite a few of you did that.

You may have read about this story in the Herald last week. An article included a comment from the Orakei Local Board that the development “will have a significant adverse effect on the social, environmental, economic and amenity values of the local community.” Concerns about building height and bulk aside, we would have to say that view seems out of step with local opinion. Though the intent may be to encourage developers to stick to the Unitary Plan zone rules. We can definitely agree with that!

Anyway, the application documents have been published, and they include official advice that the application is declined. You can read all about it in Agenda Volume 1:

OK… here’s the important bit!

“The actual and potential effects in relation to the engineering issues (stormwater, overland flow, flooding, geotechnical issues, groundwater and contamination) will be acceptable. In relation to traffic and parking issues, any actual and potential effects can be mitigated by conditions. Construction traffic and noise generated issues can be mitigated through detailed management plans required by condition, and the actual and potential effects will be acceptable as a result. Any ecological effects on St Johns Bush or the SEA are likely to be less than minor.

In relation to effects on the visual amenity from the wider viewpoints, given the height and design of buildings E and F, significant adverse visual amenity effects are likely to occur on the wider environment. Significant concern is also raised in relation to the visual dominance on the neighbouring properties to the west of the application site as a result of the height of the buildings proposed.

The actual and potential effects on the environment are not acceptable, not able to be mitigated, and are contrary to objectives and policies as relevant to visual amenity and residential amenity in the Mixed Housing Urban Zone.

Under sections 104, 104B, and 108, I recommend that consent is refused to undertake a comprehensive development of the site to construct and operate a retirement village.”

It will be interesting to hear how the hearing goes, so to speak…