SUMMER 2017 57
2.5-metre retaining wall
3-metre retaining wall with 0.8m fence above
around the existing contours on the site , giving rise to a variety of steeply sloping allotments with difficult road and access arrangements . Detailed design work demonstrated that significant retaining structures would be required to achieve level building platforms . Some of those retaining walls would be up to 8m high with fences along the top .
The new proposal will slightly lower the highest point and smooth the contours on the site enabling a greater range of accessible residential sites and improved integration with the adjoining rural residential zone . The maximum retaining walls will reduce to 3m and the overall length of retaining walls decreases by 56 %.
The Landscape and Visual Assessment report prepared by Michael Graham of Mansergh Graham Landscape Architects Ltd , proposes extensive and attractive planting in the form of street trees , hedging and boundary planting and , in my view , rightly concludes that the new proposal will have less than minor adverse effects on the environment when assessed against the existing environment that must contemplate the 2015 consent .
The issue for both preparation of the AEE and council ’ s planning report is the extent to which the underlying subdivision consent can , or must be considered when looking at the new proposal .
Existing Environment The case law specifying the environment that must be considered when assessing the effects of an
activity has followed a series of cases that developed this concept .
The Court of Appeal in Queenstown Lakes DC v Hawthorn Estate Ltd ( 2006 ) 12 ELRNZ 299 considered that the ‘ environment ’ embraces the future state of the environment as it might be modified by the utilisation of rights to carry out a permitted activity under a district plan . It also includes the environment as it might be modified by the implementation of resource consents which have been granted at the time a particular application is considered , where it appears that those consents will be implemented .
In Te Runanga-a-iwi O Ngati Kahu v Far North DC [ 2013 ] NZCA 221 , the applicant ( Carrington Farms Ltd ) had an existing land-use consent to construct 12 residential dwellings ( obtained non-notified ). Later , Carrington applied for a non-complying subdivision consent to create 12 lots for the 12 dwellings .
Carrington argued that the existing land use consent was likely to be implemented and therefore relevant to the assessment of the environment ( i . e . the effects of the subdivision should be assessed against the environment with the dwellings ). Ngati Kahu argued that the existing land use consent was part of the permitted baseline ( rather than environment ) giving the Court a discretion as to whether the effects should be disregarded .
The Environment Court decided that the consents formed part of the environment and ( reluctantly ) granted consent . The Environment Court ’ s decision was appealed to the High Court which held that