My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0349.904 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0349.904 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 7:30:54 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 6:16:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0349
Point
904
Author
Chris Haley
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close file - 9/19/07
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2007/09/19 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
COM 0349.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
s <br /> The Pfmt criteria jor multiple dwellings <br /> [24] A building on a site is a restricted discretionary activity within the Coastal <br /> Landscape Area except where a building platform has been identified in subdivision <br /> consents (14.6.3(a) attd (b)). The restricted discretionary criteria of the Plan are <br /> particularly narrow. The genesis of these criteria is from rule 14.6.3 which states: <br /> The council's discretion is restricted to the visual impact arising front the <br /> activity on the landscape chmacter and quality oJits setting. <br /> [25] The assessment criteria aze set out at rule 14.7 annexed hereto as "B". These <br /> criteria focus on the visual impact of the dwelling, both on the general chazacter of the <br /> azea and on its setting. Having heard from the landscape architects and ecologists, we <br /> aze satisfied that the witnesses are in agreement that there will be visual impacts which <br /> are more than minimal from the construction of the houses. The approach of Mr A M <br /> Rackham for the appellant was that such effects could be adequately mitigated by <br /> planting in key positions around the homes. Further, his view was that, in the ovetat[ <br /> exercise of discretion, compensatory planting, which would take place to enhance the <br /> existing bush on the site, would mean that overall the buildings could be granted <br /> consent. <br /> [26] We note that this site is within a Coastal Protection Zone overlay and is situated <br /> an a headland with cleaz views to sea. It is visible from the settlements of Warrington <br /> and Long Beach, though at a distance. More practically, Boundary Street, although <br /> unformed, does provide legal access proximate to the house positions, from wlticlt a <br /> view of at least house lot $ can be obtained. <br /> Evaluation <br /> [27] We have concluded that the Court should not permit this further incursion into <br /> the Rural Zone within the Coastal Protection Zone overlay. Our reasoning is based on <br /> ~;(;fu or- % the following conclusions: <br /> 6 <br /> ~r G <br /> <br /> I ~i <br /> ih; i' <br /> l''C1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.