Building rule-breaker challenged

A three storey mixed development proposed for residentially zoned Farm Street in Mount Maunganui has been opposed at a hearing today by 41 objectors concerned at the impact the development will have on their neighbourhood.

While the objectors claim the development by Farm Street Developments Ltd breaches all the city council bylaws, it is supported by Tauranga City Council planning staff.

The council's senior environment planner Stacey Hikairo says the development will be consistent with the objectives and policies of the city plan, even though the proposed building doesn't comply with height, overshadowing, coverage and side and rear year setback requirements of the Residential Zone.

The neigbouring Farm Street Family Health Centre says the density of the proposed development is one residential unit per 101m2 which far exceeds the Operative Tauranga City Plan maximum permitted residential density of one unit per 325m2.

In addition to the eight residential units there is proposed to be a commercial business operating from the single 812sqm suburban residential section. This represents an excessive overdevelopment of the subject site and will create unacceptable adverse environmental effects on neighbouring properties and the surrounding locality, says the health centre's consultant Russel De Luca.

He says the development is a combination of very intensive residential living combined with a business activity which is not consistent with the Tauranga City Plan, and that it will undermine the integrity of the Plan by allowing an intensive out of zone development. If granted it will set an undesirable planning precedent for the area and throughout the wider Suburban Residential Zone.

The City Plan permitted height limit is 9m, says Russell's submission. The proposal will be mostly 10m and up to 12m high.

'Visually, the adverse effects of this will be a very large and intrusive building completely out of character with the existing neighbourhood.

The City Plan permits 45 per cent coverage of net site area. The proposed development will have a site coverage exceeding 80 per cent.

'This is a huge building almost completely occupying a single suburban site, creating a significant impact on neighbouring properties and surrounding community.”

Objectors are concerned that if approved in its current form the development will create pressure to approve other non-complying developments in the future, with ‘cascading' community effects, say objectors Dean and Caz Muller.

They say the design appears to breach all of the city bylaws. The propsoed building breaches set back distances from boundaries, it is built over existing sewer lines, and over height and overhsadowing rules are breached, say the Mullers.

Traffic effects on Farm St are more than minor, storm water collection and containement are not addressed. The building covers more than 80 per cent of the site and the unit size of 60m2 is very small.

Farm Street is zoned residential.

You may also like....

9 comments

Excuse me

Posted on 29-06-2017 18:30 | By overit

If it doesn't comply with 5 requirements of Residental Zoning, why is it there. Good on the Mullers for objecting, this is corruption and will only get worse.


back

Posted on 29-06-2017 18:44 | By Capt_Kaveman

to the drawing board but i support such a building but in smaller form, to update the area some new projects must go ahead as Farm st is built in the 50s n 60s which is getting on


hang on a minute

Posted on 29-06-2017 19:33 | By old trucker

Funny how it breaches all the city council bylaws, and TCC allows this, for god sake, years ago a TCC stiff shirt come to my property and measured my fence and it was 19 mil to high,(thats three quarters of inch in old money) can you see the difference, This is my thoughts only, (wonder is there a conflict of interest here) to build this, it appears that tcc can break the rules when they want too. surely 40 objections can stop it, must watch this space about this,Sunlive is No1 for NEWS ,Thankyou, 10-4 out.


Nothing new

Posted on 29-06-2017 21:35 | By rosbo

A recent report on the Council's Building Service Division found they were autocratic, inconsistent and wouldn't listen. Nothing is new, is it?


Agree with Overit

Posted on 30-06-2017 08:02 | By RawPrawn

This proposal is legally, socially and morally corrupt. Council shouldn't even be considering it in its present form!


representing rate payers

Posted on 30-06-2017 08:36 | By hapukafin

You know who not to vote for if your councillor support any breaches of the council bylaw


Hmmm

Posted on 30-06-2017 09:29 | By philiphallen

Perhaps some enterprising independent corporate lawyer, (not local) should look into the workings of the TCC! I am sure some legal scrutiny of the goings on in the TCC ivory towers with sort out any perceived or real mismanagement within the Teflon coated layers of autocracy. Then maybe we might see a little responsibility taken for spending OUR hard earned money on the core requirements that the council should be spending money on Yeah Right.


Identifies the issue ... the arrogance, the undermining of the consulted City Plan

Posted on 30-06-2017 09:49 | By Murray.Guy

Here's the rub, why on earth do we go through the democratic Local Government Act required, extensive and very expensive 'City Plan processes', when CONSISTANTLY staff and elected members will deliberately undermine and or ignore the process and it's community driven outcomes? Local democracy is SUPPOSED to be about 'local communities' having meaningful opportunities to determine the look and feel, the development of the space, their place. Successive Mayors and Councillors have over time chosen NOT TO DO THEIR JOB, preferring to side with staff and not hold them to account through the CEO review process, have chosen to abuse our community and undermine democracy using 'fair means or foul'. IT IS WRONG, SO BLOODY WRONG! When staff don't 'get their way' through integrity and democratic processes, through the front door, 'they wait 'till dark and use the back door'.


Article is misleading

Posted on 30-06-2017 12:29 | By jp42

This development sounds perfect!Perfect location - opposite mall, opposite bus terminal, and all the services...Aren’t there already a lot of shops in that "residential" area?It’s better designed than 90% of what’s in the area. That area is ripe for development and intensification, everything is very 50s there. We need homes.The section that would break height rules is tiny - you can see it in the photo.Think someone has a bee in their bonnet at that doctors surgery....


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.