1
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA or Act)
AND and an application to the Hamilton
City Council (Council) by the Waikato
Regional Theatre Governance Group
to establish a Waikato Regional
Theatre facility, which includes a
1,300‐seat auditorium and associated
theatre facilities, a conference centre,
hotel and other retail/hospitality
tenancies and associated activities.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 APPLICATION
The Waikato Regional Theatre Governance Group (the applicant) wishes to establish a regional
theatre facility which is described as follows in the s42A report;
The “Waikato Regional Theatre Governance Panel (the applicant) seeks to establish the
Waikato Regional Theatre facility, which includes a 1,300‐seat auditorium and associated
theatre facilities, a conference centre, hotel and other retail/hospitality tenancies.
Construction of the proposal involves, amongst other activities, the following:
The partial removal of, and external and internal alterations to, the Hamilton Hotel;
an 'A' Ranked Built Heritage Item;
The removal of three scheduled Significant Trees;
Works within Embassy Park to create a large plaza and level access to the main theatre
entrance and access to the riverfront promenade; and
The installation of a 5m wide riverfront promenade which will include works within a
'Group 2' Significant Archaeological Site and the Waikato Riverbank and Gully Hazard
Area.
The evidence of Mr Eglinton who has been Project Director for the proposal was of
assistance in providing background to the project, its rationale, and development of the
proposal before me for consideration. The discussion on consultation1 provided an
understanding of the nature and scope of consultation. He further outlined the
transformational nature of the proposal and the positive effects such as contributing to
the rejuvenation of the Hamilton Central Business District (CBD) and the development of
1 Eglinton Evidence‐ Paras 3.13‐3.17
2
a flourishing arts and culture precinct2. He outlined that engagement with mana whenua
had been integral to development of the project.
1.2 SITE & SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
The section 42A report described the site and environment as follows:
“The subject site of 170‐206 and 208‐218 Victoria Street is located within central Hamilton.
The subject site (see Figure 1 above) is bound by public frontages on all four sides; with Victoria
Street to the west and Sapper Moore‐Jones Place to the south. The application includes works
within Embassy Park (208‐218 Victoria Street) to the north and the western bank of the
Waikato River to the east.
The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial uses (office, retail, food and
beverage/entertainment facilities and accommodation), with buildings of various styles and
heights.
Embassy Park contains a number of trees, gardens, street furniture, a public toilet and statue
(Riff Raff); while the riverfront embankment area is heavily vegetated and undeveloped.
A detailed description of the subject site and the existing buildings/features is found in the
report entitled Waikato Regional Theatre – Application for Resource Consent and Assessment
of Environmental Effects, prepared by Tattico (hereafter referred to as the AEE) and its
associated supporting documents.
Buildings
The former Hamilton Hotel occupies much of the western half of the subject site which is an A
ranked Built Heritage Item within Schedule 8A of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan (the
District Plan) and listed as a Category 2 Historic Place by Heritage New Zealand.
As described in the AEE and supporting technical assessments, the former Hamilton Hotel
consists of the main hotel building as well as a number of subsequent additions and alterations
constructed between 1923‐1929.
The former Hamilton Hotel contains several external and internal spaces/features that have
been assessed as having heritage values that range from ‘exceptional’ and ‘considerable’ to
‘intrusive’ due to their modification and/or current state. Features of significance include:
The original Victoria Street entranceway (including doors and glazing);
The upper storey of the Victoria Street façade, which displays Classical and Beaux‐Arts
styling, incorporating numerous original features typical of the styles;
2 Eglinton Evidence‐ Paras 3.24‐3.36
3
The timber staircase adjacent to the main entrance lobby; and
The interiors of the top floor of the hotel annexe understood to be the bedroom of
Queen Elizabeth during her 1953‐54 visit (referred to as the ‘Queen’s Suite’).
The Hamilton Hotel currently contains several retail and food and beverage tenancies located on the ground floor fronting Victoria Street; with the balance occupied by private residential rental tenants.
Contiguous to the Hamilton Hotel in the north‐western corner of the site are two one‐storey
buildings (198 and 206 Victoria Street) which are currently used for commercial purposes. The
buildings were constructed in 1935.
A stand‐alone home, constructed in 1925 as staff accommodation, is located on the northern
side of the subject site. Vehicle access to the home is provided via Sapper Moore‐Jones Place
to the south. Three further stand‐alone buildings (a shed, hut and two‐car parking garage) are
also scattered across the subject site.
Other Features
The subject site contains two car parking areas, accessed from two separate driveways off
Sapper Moore‐Jones Place.
The south‐eastern corner of the subject site, adjacent to the riverbank, contains an area of
terraced gardens that originated in the 1870s. This area, which is now heavily overgrown,
includes five trees listed within Schedule 9D of the District Plan (Significant Trees)”.
1.3 APPOINTMENT
I was appointed by the Council as an Independent Commissioner in terms of s34A of the
Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”) to hear the applicant, submitters and the
Council’s reporting officer and to determine the application. The information available to me
prior to the hearing included the application, assessment of environmental effects (AEE) report
and other information; the submissions and a report prepared by Council’s reporting officer,
being the s42A report, and expert technical evidence.
1.4 ACTIVITY STATUS
The proposal involves District Plan rules that cannot be complied with that have restricted
discretionary, discretionary and non‐complying activity status.3
The principle of bundling applications, a concept developed by the Environment Court, applies
in respect of this manner. Where an activity is unable to comply with multiple District Plan
3 Section 3.9‐ s42A report
4
provisions of differing activity status, they must be considered at the most onerous activity
status and assessed using the more stringent criteria (King & Ors v Auckland City Council; [2000]
NZRMA 145). Having considered the bundling principle, I concur with the advice of the reporting
officer and that the proposal be considered as a non‐complying activity.
1.5 NOTIFICATION
The application was publicly notified on 22 May 2019, with the submission period closing on 18
July. Eleven submissions were received in support and 14 in opposition to the proposal. There
were 3 submissions that were neutral.
1.6 DIRECTION
On 12 September 2019, I issued a direction regarding an evidence exchange timetable and the
hearing process.
1.7 DEFINITIONS
In this Decision I use the following terms:
AEE ‐ Assessment of Effects on the Environment report
Applicant ‐ Waikato Regional Theatre Governance Group
Council/ HCC ‐ Hamilton City Council
District Plan ‐ Operative Hamilton District Plan
HNZPT ‐ Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
RMA ‐ Resource Management Act 1991 and its amendments
2. HEARING
The hearing was conducted on 16, 17 & 18 October 2019 in the Hamilton City Council Reception
Lounge. Appearances were from:
2.1 APPLICANT
Mr Gerald Lanning‐ Counsel
Mr Kelvyn Eglinton‐Project Director
Mr David Pugh‐Architect
5
Mr Adam Wild‐Architect
Dr Rod Clough‐Archaeologist
Mr Jon Redfern‐Hardisty‐Arborist
Mr Tristan Howard‐Construction Manager
Mr Russell Brandon‐Transport Engineer
Mr James Bell‐Booth‐Acoustic Consultant
Mr Dan Mills‐Geotechnical Engineer
Mr James Armitage‐Civil Engineer
Mr Mark Vinall‐ Planner
2.2 SUBMITTERS
Ms Vanessa Williams‐ Hamilton Business Association
Mr Toby Braun (acting for Mr Murray Vereker‐Bindon of Three Oaks Trust)
Ms Jo Bailey
Heritage NZ
‐Ms Rebecca Vertongen‐ Counsel
‐Ms Carolyn McAlley‐Planner
‐Dr Rachel Darmody‐ Archaeologist
‐Ms Robin Byron‐Conservation Architect
‐Ms Makere Rika‐Heke‐Pouarahi & Archaeologist
Te Haa O Whenua O Kirikiriroa (THAWK)
‐Mr Sonny Karena
‐Mr Rawiri Bidois
Mr Carl de Leeuw
Mr Murray Earl
Waikato Heritage Group
‐Mr Niall Baker
‐Ms Ros Empson
NB: Fire and Emergency New Zealand had made a submission to the proposal. They did not appear at the hearing.
However, a statement produced by Beca, was provided to me at the hearing relating to recommended
transportation design and water conditions. I have considered those matters.
2.3 COUNCIL
Mr Andrew Cumberpatch‐s42A Reporting Officer
Mr Colin Hattingh‐ Urban Designer
Mr Dave Pearson‐Built Heritage
Mr Grant Sirl‐ Arborist
Mr Alistair Black‐ Transport Engineer
Mr John Brzeski‐ Geotechnical Engineer
Ms Carmel Mangan‐ Contaminated Land
6
Mr Martyn Smith‐Infrastructure
Mr Peter McGregor‐ Noise & Vibration
Mr Jamie Sirl‐HCC Parks NB: Not all of the above presented at the hearing but had provided input into the s42A report
2.4 SITE VISIT
I conducted a site visit on 16 October 2019. There were no other parties in attendance. I
subsequently undertook a site visit that involved going on‐site and undertaking a walk‐ through
of the old Hamilton Hotel building including the ‘Queens Suite’. I walked around the site and
noted the various trees on‐site and other buildings. I was accompanied by Mr Graeme Ward, a
representative of the applicant who was not involved with the hearing. I also walked around
Riff Raff park and adjacent areas.
2.5 CLOSURE OF HEARING
I formally closed the hearing on 11 November 2019 after I had concluded that I had sufficient
information on which to determine the application.
3. SUBMISSION & MAIN ISSUES RAISED
The submissions raised a range of matters and are summarised as follows;
Construction effects on amenity values; in particular noise, vibration and traffic and
working hours;
Privacy and security risks to residents of 238 and 240 Victoria Street;
Connectivity and design of the promenade;
Ongoing noise effects on residents of 238 and 240 Victoria Street;
Stability of the riverside embankment area;
Loss of historic heritage (built form, archaeology and garden/trees);
Benefits of the proposal and the revitalisation of the CBD as a result; and
Inconsistencies within application documentation and lack of detail.
A more detailed summary of submissions points is contained in Attachment 1 to the decision.
The s42A report outlined several matters that the reporting officer believed were beyond the
scope of my consideration of some submissions. These matters related to;
With reference to case law, any effects of a proposal on property values is not a
matter for consideration by a consent authority;
7
The requirements under s4 of the LGA to improve opportunities for Māori to
contribute to local government decision‐making processes does not apply to the
applicant as it is not a local government led project; and
10‐year plan process/HCC debt ‐ the funding of the proposal, and the decision‐
making process upon which any funding contribution has been determined by HCC
is outside of any RMA consideration and therefore not an appropriate
consideration in respect of this application.
I concur that these matters are beyond my jurisdiction to consider under the RMA and
while submitters may have concerns, the RMA process is not one by which consideration
can be given to them in considering and determining this resource consent application.
4. STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
In considering the application, I have had regard to the matters to be considered as set out in
s104 of the RMA, recognising the status of the activity being a non‐complying activity. Activity
status is discussed in section 1.5 of this decision.
The statutory provisions for the assessment and determination of the application are
outlined in s104, 104B and 104D of the RMA which provide the primary assessment
framework as set out below. Section 104D is commonly known as the “gateway test” and
proposals for non‐complying activities must satisfy either clause (a) or (b) of the section.
“Section 104 Consideration of applications
(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received,
the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to–
(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
(b) any relevant provisions of—
(i) a national environmental standard:
(ii) other regulations:
(iii) a national policy statement:
(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and]]
(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably
necessary to determine the application.
Section 104B Determination of applications for discretionary or non‐complying activities
After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non‐
complying activity, a consent authority—
(a) may grant or refuse the application; and
(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.
Section 104D Particular restrictions for non‐complying activities
8
(1) Despite any decision made for the purpose of notification in relation to adverse effects,
a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non‐complying activity only if it is
satisfied that either—
(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to
which section 104(3)(a)(ii) applies) will be minor; or
(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and
policies of—
(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the
activity; or
(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan
in respect of the activity; or
(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan
and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.
(2) To avoid doubt, section 104(2) applies to the determination of an application for a non‐
complying activity”.
5. PRINCIPAL MATTERS IN CONTENTION
Having considered the application, submissions and evidence provided, and being guided
by the assessment criteria of the District Plan, I consider that the principal issues of
contention are:
Loss of historic heritage (built form, archaeology and garden/trees);
Construction effects on amenity values; in particular noise, vibration and traffic and
working hours;
Connectivity and design of the promenade and associated redevelopment of
Embassy Park;
Ongoing noise effects on residents of 238 and 240 Victoria Street;
Stability of the riverside embankment area;
These matters are further considered in section 6 of this decision.
6. MAIN FINDINGS
The application, submissions and s42A report and the evidence presented at the hearing
identified a range of effects for consideration. I wish to generally acknowledge and agree with
the analysis and conclusions contained in the s42A report in respect of the assessment of
effects.
6.1 DISTRICT PLAN
The District Plan is the primary planning document in respect of consideration of the proposal.
9
Discussion in respect of the District Plan objectives and policies is contained in section 8 of this
decision.
6.2 BUILT HERITAGE EFFECTS
The former Hamilton Hotel site is identified in the District Plan as an “A Ranked Heritage
Item” and a Category 2 Historic Place (of historical or cultural significance or value) under
the Rārangi Kōrero/Heritage New Zealand List.
The Plan seeks to ensure significant buildings that define the City’s historic heritage are
identified and protected from the adverse effects of subdivision, use and development;
with development to adhere to the conservation principles of International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) being the New Zealand Charter (2010) for the
Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value where applicable.
It is intended that the proposal;
“….. will retain the ‘original’ hotel building and will refurbish/reinstate the external
facades of the building. The Victoria Street façade will be refurbished to provide for
the new hotel entrance and restaurant/bar on the first floor. The restoration of the
façade is considered to maintain and enhance the Victoria Street frontage and
reintroducing the building as a cornerstone building within the heritage context of
the City Centre. The proposal will remove the additions made to the hotel building
to provide for the new hotel form and theatre building. These additions are not
consistent with the architectural style and design of the original hotel building, and
as such their removal are not considered to have a significant adverse effect on the
heritage value of the site. The proposed additions to the building aim to reflect the
development form and pattern of the original hotel building and will mimic the scale
of the building along all frontages. This will highlight the heritage form and pattern
of development and ensure consistency with the former hotel building. The
materiality of the proposed additions to the building will be complementary to the
former hotel building”.
The applicant proposed a range of mitigation measures which were outlined in the
evidence of Mr Wild and Mr Vinall. It is noted that the relevant measures and associated
conditions were subsequently agreed by the Council.
In respect of submissions, some submitters were in support of the proposal and there
were 3 submissions in opposition.
Ms Hamon opposed the proposal given it involved an A ranked building and that it was
one of only two historic hotels in Hamilton.
10
Heritage NZ outlined a range of matters to be addressed and made a range of requests
to address their concerns. These were outlined in the evidence of Ms Byron4, who
outlined a number of significant benefits of the proposal. She noted that in her opinion
having regard to the proposed conditions of consent and on balance, that the loss of
heritage ‘while not minor’ was acceptable.
I note the evidence of Ms McAlley of HNZ which sought amendments to the proposed
conditions which I have considered, and some amendments made.
The Waikato Heritage Group submission opposed the proposal and were concerned
about the loss of heritage and that the applicant’s heritage assessment was inadequate.
No expert evidence was presented.
While I acknowledge the concerns expressed by the group and Ms Hamon, the proposal
does allow for retention of some parts of the scheduled building particularly part of the
former hotel facing Victoria Street, and with the associated conditions of consent a range
of mitigation measures including a visual and written record of the site and the reuse of
significant heritage items. An alternative would be to decline consent for demolition, and
the possibility that no refurbishment occurs, and that the heritage building continues to
deteriorate.
Given the expert evidence and the general agreement of the heritage experts, I concur
with their opinions and recommendations regarding mitigation.
Notwithstanding the above conclusion, I am of the view that effects of the proposal
regarding heritage will be greater than minor.
6.3 BUILT FORM EFFECTS
Bulk and Location
It is noted that the maximum height within the District Plan for buildings within Height
Overlay 1 area is 16m (with no bonuses), or up to 24m with a single bonus; while 100%
site coverage (nil permeable surfaces) is provided for within the Precinct applicable to the
subject site. No Height in Relation to Boundary standards apply to the subject site given
it does not adjoin a Residential or Special Character Zone.
It is proposed that the maximum building height of any structure will be the “fly tower”
to be 29 metres in height but is to be located in the centre of the site. The remainder of
4 Byron Evidence‐ Paras 5.1, 6.1‐6.5
11
the hotel and theatre structure being built is to be of a similar scale to that of
development elsewhere along Victoria Street.
The applicants’ assessment reached the following conclusions in respect of landscape
character and visual amenity matters5;
“Landscape character and visual amenity effects will occur due to the proposal.
However, because of the high quality of the design, the absorptive capability of the
large‐scale landscapes of the Waikato River and the City and amenity benefits
associated with the provision of new high quality public spaces and significantly
raised levels of public space activation around the WRT these affects will be
mitigated to an acceptable minor level at least and beneficial positive level at best.
For the greater part most landscape character zones and places will experience on
balance beneficial effects when considered in relation to the future plans, policies
and objectives of the city. These areas are:
o City centre
o City (commercial zone)
o Collectively the Waikato River Landscape, park lands, public open spaces and
esplanades
o Arterial road / bridge crossings.
Furthermore, beneficial effects are anticipated to be at a ‘moderate’ beneficial
effect with respect to the Victoria Street streetscape as the proposal regenerates
activity in this street whilst restoring the street elevation of the historic hotel
frontage.
Negative landscape amenity effects occur on properties within the residential
special character zone located on the opposite side to the ridge along River Road.
Views to the WRT from these properties are typically screened by dense vegetation
and intervening buildings or mitigated by distance and existing built forms.
However, some properties close to the WRT site will have views of the new structure
through gaps between buildings and the abundant riverside / parkland vegetation.
The impact of these views is mitigated by (sic) the high quality of the design which
as these will generate activity within the city in accordance with Hamilton City
Council’s long‐term planning policy aspirations. However, the illumination of the
building’s exterior is a (sic) noticeable night‐ time effect and may not be to
everyone’s taste and for that reason this has been assessed as a minor adverse
effect on their visual amenity”.
5 S42A Report‐ Para 92
12
Some submitters highlighted concerns specifically relating to the scale and visual effects
of the proposal and that the proposed screen structure, which is proposed to extend
approximately 3m into the riverside embankment, would encroach upon the views and
river vistas from 238 and 240 Victoria Street. For the sake of clarity, the screen is not
proposed to intrude into Embassy Park. As noted by Mr Cumberpatch, there were no
submissions in relation to any potential adverse visual/landscape effects from residents
located on the eastern side of the Waikato River.
In respect of submitter expectations, I note that given the location of the submitter
properties in the Central City Zone which allows for 100% site coverage and building
height of several storeys, it is unreasonable to expect that views will continue to be
available. Whilst I appreciate that the proposal and in particular note the concerns raised
by submitters regarding the proposed screen structure, that could reduce the current
views/ vistas enjoyed by submitters, there is no particular protection from a policy and
objective perspective, that proposes protection of such views or vistas.
I note Mr Cumberpatch’s opinion6 in respect of the proposed screen structure as follows;
“While the screen structure is proposed to encroach into the Open Space zoned
embankment area by approximately 3.7m at the northern edge of the subject site,
views south‐east down the river corridor will still be largely available (and unaffected
in all other directions) from the north‐east (main) facades of the 240 Victoria Street
apartments. The encroachment is also considered to be minor given the overall scale
of the proposal and will be mitigated by the fact that the structure is semi‐transparent
and set back approximately 40m from the river; thereby not physically dominating this
public area”.
I concur with this view and note that the screen structure is an integral part of the design
of the complex.
The proposal will result in a significant change to the overall appearance of the subject
site and will result in most of the site being covered by the theatre and hotel complex. As
noted in the application documentation and the s42A report7, the changes will be
significant given what currently exists on the site. These changes are described as follows;
“The existing Victoria Street façade is proposed to be generally maintained and
restored as currently established. The new café/art gallery (that will replace to the two
buildings to the north of the original hotel building) will be of a larger scale than
6 S42A Report‐ Para104 7 S42A Report‐Paras 95‐99
13
existing but will match the height of the original hotel building; maintaining the scale
of development along Victoria Street.
The above ground scale of the new café/art gallery will be maintained along the
Embassy Park frontage to the north, with the additions along Sapper Moore‐Jones
Place to the south also matching the original hotel building height. This continues onto
the ‘wrap‐around’ screen structure. This floating design and consistency of scale will
minimise the perception of bulk when viewed from these street frontages.
When viewed from the eastern side of the Waikato River, the proposal will sit upon the
current ridgeline formed by Victoria Street; with the existing vegetation along the river
edge largely unaffected.
Whilst set back from the street frontages and centred within the site, the proposed fly
tower structure, which will be approximately 29m in height to meet the operational
requirement of the theatre, will become a prominent feature within this wider area”.
The proposal will result in significant changes to what already exists on the subject site
and close to total coverage of the subject site. The view of the site from Embassy Park
and Sapper Moore ‐Jones Place will be to a significant degree of change to what currently
exists. In respect of the Victoria Street frontage the hotel façade will be restored and be
of a scale similar to what currently exits. It is proposed that the café/ gallery will be of a
similar height to the hotel building.
I note Mr Cumberpatch’s comments as follows in respect of building scale;
“The above ground scale of the new café/art gallery will be maintained along the
Embassy Park frontage to the north, with the additions along Sapper Moore‐Jones
Place to the south also matching the original hotel building height. This continues onto
the ‘wrap‐around’ screen structure. This floating design and consistency of scale will
minimise the perception of bulk when viewed from these street frontages.
When viewed from the eastern side of the Waikato River, the proposal will sit upon the
current ridgeline formed by Victoria Street; with the existing vegetation along the river
edge largely unaffected.
Whilst set back from the street frontages and centred within the site, the proposed fly
tower structure, which will be approximately 29m in height to meet the operational
requirement of the theatre, will become a prominent feature within this wider area.
It is noted that the horizontal form of the proposed screen structure, which is similar in
scale to surrounding buildings, will assist in offsetting the vertical mass. The successful
14
retention of the significant Norfolk Island Pine and Bunya Pine trees, which are of a
similar height, will further ‘soften’ the scale of the fly tower structure”.
Having considered building form including the proposed heights of various aspects of the
proposal, the District Plan standards and outcomes, I am of the opinion that any effects
in respect of bulk and location of the proposal are no more than minor. While there will
be a significant change in respect of structures on the site to what currently exists, and
that the design features such as the screen encroach into the Open Space Zone adjacent
to the river, and the ‘fly tower’ is higher than permitted through the bonus provisions,
the proposal will contribute to the vibrancy and attractiveness of the city centre and
generally of a scale particularly on the periphery of the site which is compatible with what
exists in the locality.
Amenity and Urban Design
The subject site is located at southern end of Victoria Street which is characterised by
retail, dining and entertainment activities at street level, with some residential and office
uses at upper levels. I note that there are 12 separate Built Heritage listings from
Schedule 8A of the District Plan which are located along Victoria Street in the block
between Collingwood and Hood Streets, and many of these have been redeveloped for
new uses such as retail, dining and entertainment.
The proposal is considered by the applicant to be consistent with the city centre’s vision
of becoming a vibrant and attractive city centre through the redevelopment of the
subject site and adjacent public area that will result in significant improvement of the
adjoining public spaces and improved levels of amenity. It is also considered that it will
significantly improve the pedestrian amenity of area including Victoria Street, Embassy
Plaza, Sapper Moore Jones Place and the area adjoining the river. The proposed design is
considered to provide a consistent streetscape in terms of accessibility, safety and overall
amenity. I note that the proposal is considered to make a significant positive contribution
to the streetscape and riverfront character and amenity of the site and the wider city
area.
In respect of submissions received, a number supported the proposal including its’
design, and that it would contribute to the revitalisation and rejuvenation of the CBD.
Other submitters highlighted a range of concerns related to a lack of detail in respect of
the proposed Embassy Park works; the design of the proposed promenade removing
existing connections from Embassy Park to the Waikato River; concerns around the
design of the proposed promenade which would see it at the same level as the lower
living and bedrooms of 240 Victoria Street apartments resulting in unacceptable safety,
privacy and security issues that contradicts District Plan policy and CPTED principles; and
15
that designs for the site were not consistent with the vision for the area as contained in
the District Plan, including Appendix 1.4.6 – Riverfront Development Design Guide.
I noted that the proposal had been presented to the “Hamilton Urban Design Advisory
Panel in June 2018, and that the panel overwhelmingly supported the proposed design
and noted that the Waikato Regional Theatre represents the most significant civic and
urban intervention in Hamilton CBD currently”.8
Mr Hattingh concurs with the opinions expressed by the panel, and also considers the
proposal is strongly aligned with the urban design outcomes expressed within the District
Plan given the proposed mix of complementing activities that will attract people to the
CBD. He also highlights aspects of the proposal described within the AEE which he
supports; including the creation of a continuous street edge and active frontages”.
The s42A report extensively discusses the urban design matters and also the matters
raised by submitters in respect of such matters. This included the response of the
applicant to concerns raised around the design of Embassy Park and that the main
entrance to the theatre is to be via Embassy Park.
Specific matters outlined by the applicant in response to urban design matters
highlighted in submissions, at the hearing and by the Council included the following;
The section of promenade provided as part of the proposal terminating at the
eastern edge of Embassy Park;
The inclusion of stairs to the lower‐level promenade/pedestrian route located
within the riverside open space area;
The promenade connecting to a deck area at the base of the Embassy Park
terraces/steps, also at a level of 35.00;
The required retaining walls located within the centre of Embassy Park, away from
the boundary to the north; and
The northern edge of Embassy Park, immediately adjacent to the southern side of
the 240 Victoria Street apartments, landscaped with a large tree and grass and no
section of promenade to the north passing the apartments.
Having considered the response from the applicant to the concerns raised by submitters
and the advice of Mr Hattingh, and the conditions proposed to address submitter and
Council concerns, I am of the opinion that the urban design effects of the proposal will
be no more than minor. No expert evidence was produced to the contrary.
The proposal will contribute to CBD revitalisation and rejuvenation in this locality.
8 S42A Report‐ Para117‐118
16
Given the matters raised in respect of Embassy Park and the riverside promenade, it is
considered appropriate that the detailed design of these spaces be provided to the
Council for approval prior to any construction commencing. There needs to be a high level
of certainty in respect of the design and urban design outcomes sought.
6.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
In respect of the subject site, the south‐eastern corner is identified as a significant
archaeological site under the District Plan [Group 2 (A123) (Hua O Te Atua Urupa)]. I
further note that this “scheduling was based on research completed in 2000 and details
provided by tāngata whenua whereby it was recorded that the former Hamilton Hotel
was built in part, over this Urupa”.9
The matter of archaeology and in particular the potential location of the urupa was extensively
traversed by the applicant, Council and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) and
THAWK representatives as submitters.
As noted elsewhere in this decision THAWK submitted in support of the proposal and are the
mandated mana whenua group for the city area. Mr Bidois noted that there was uncertainty in
respect of the location of the urupa, and he stated that “we don’t even know if it is there”. He
further outlined that in his view, the purpose of scheduling the site is to be more careful than
normal. Mr Bidois further commented that the only realistic way to understand what is on the
site is to undertake excavation.
THAWK also supported the implementation of appropriate accidental discovery protocols in
case ‘koiwi’ were unearthed.
HNZPT opposed the proposal in respect of archaeological matters and Dr Darmody was of the
opinion that the potential effects on archaeological values within the scheduled urupa area
were more than minor. She was of the opinion that there was not enough archaeological
information to assess the effects of the proposal on the Hau Te Atua urupa and that an
archaeological survey needed to be undertaken.
In my opinion the position of HNZPT is somewhat at odds with that of mana whenua, who
advised that the scheduling approach was to indicate that increased care needed to be taken
when undertaking works on the site, and that there was no certainty that the urupa actually
existed on the subject site.
On balance, I accept the advice of THAWK and agree that consent be granted but that there are
appropriate conditions of consent to address any accidental discovery of human remains. I also
9 S42A Report‐ Para 172
17
note that a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) has been completed (attached to reply
submissions) and that the CIA recommendations relate to how the relevant conditions of
consent are to be implemented.
I note that it is intended that interpretive panels/design features that reflect the history of the
site and any archaeological remains recovered, are to be provided.
Given the imposition of conditions of consent and that THAWK have provided a Cultural
Impact Assessment, that is agreed by the applicant, I am of the view that the adverse
effects on archaeological values will be acceptable and no more than minor.
6.5 ARBORICULTURAL EFFECTS
The subject site has within it five trees which are listed, listed within Schedule 9D
(Significant Trees) of the District Plan. The trees are located within the southern and
eastern side of the site, and are defined as follows:
ID 16.1 – Norfolk Pine;
ID 16.2 – Norfolk Pine;
ID 16.3 – Bunya Pine;
ID 16.4 – Southern Magnolia; and
ID 16.5 – Southern Magnolia.
I note that the District Plan provisions seeks to ensure that “scheduled trees within
established urban areas are removed or transplanted only under exceptional
circumstances, and where alternative options for the retention of the tree have been
exhausted; and that ongoing care and maintenance of scheduled trees is undertaken”.10
The proposal involves the removal of three scheduled trees. I was advised that the
arboricultural assessment stated “ that due to health‐related issues, one of the Norfolk
Pine 16.2 is proposed to be removed; while the two Southern Magnolia trees (16.4 and
16.5) are proposed to be removed as it is likely that they will be compromised by the
proposed structure’s foundations”. 11
The applicant had proposed mitigation given the proposed removal of the 3 trees. This
included the preparation of a Tree Protection management Plan to ensure the remaining
scheduled trees are protected during construction works and planting of 3 specimen
trees.
10 Policies 20.2.3b and 20.2.3f 11 S42A Report‐ Paras 203,204
18
The two remaining scheduled trees are to be incorporated within the design of the
proposal although Mr Sirl noted that this will result in physical changes to the trees that
will have an adverse effect on their current form and their long‐term health and vitality.
I note that the applicant’s AEE concludes that removal of the trees will have a no more
than minor effect on the ‘surrounding environment’. Mr Sirl expressed a contrary view
that the removal of the scheduled trees will result in effects greater than minor. Mr
Cumberpatch noted that “notwithstanding the conflicting conclusions around the current
health and vitality of trees 16.4 and 16.5 and therefore their values, these trees are
nonetheless currently scheduled under the District Plan. The concerns around the ongoing
viability of these trees appears to be based on the effects and risks of the current design
of the proposal; with no specific comment provided on how, if possible, the proposal could
have been re‐designed to successfully accommodate these scheduled trees in light of their
current health.
The TPMP will require a range of practicable steps to be taken to protect the two trees
during construction and on an ongoing basis, there remains an element of uncertainty
around their long‐term viability and health.
The proposal will result in the removal of three scheduled trees which contribute to the
amenity of the surrounding area. Notwithstanding that the applicant proposes to
undertake mitigation including the planning of 3 specimen trees, I concur with both Mr
Sirl and Mr Cumberpatch that the adverse effects of removal cannot be readily mitigated
by the proposed planting.
I acknowledge that there will be retention of the two remaining scheduled trees, but it is
noted that this will result in physical changes to the trees that will, that could have an
adverse long‐term effect on their health and vitality.
Having regard to the expert evidence before me, I conclude that the removal of the three
scheduled tees will have adverse effects on arboricultural values that are more than
minor.
6.6 TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS
The applicant and the s42A report provided an extensive analysis of transportation related
matters and potential effects arising from the proposal. I note that no opposing evidence was
provided.
Construction Traffic Effects
19
Some submitters were concerned about the potential blocking of Victoria Street for traffic
management purposes and implications for access to their properties. Other concerns included
how traffic management will occur in Sapper Moore‐Jones Place; where will carparking be
provide for construction personnel and vibrations caused by truck movements. Also, concerns
were highlighted about potential challenges of pedestrians trying to cross Victoria Street to visit
businesses during the construction period.
Given that there are a range of potential construction traffic effects and that mitigation of them
is required, the applicant has proposed that a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) be
prepared and implemented. Such matters to be contained in such a plan would include;
“A description of the construction site and a programme and scope of the works;
Routes to be used by construction traffic to access and egress the site and the adoption
of any measures on these routes to ensure a safe environment for all road users,
including existing residents and pedestrians to ensure that the surrounding road
network will continue to operate in an efficient manner;
The amount of construction traffic expected during each phase of construction;
Access for construction vehicles onto the road network from the site and measures to
be adopted at these access points to ensure a safe traffic environment for other road
users, especially pedestrians; and
Parking for contractor vehicles on the development site thereby ensuring that the on‐
street parking effects as a result of the construction activity are minimised”.12
I note that Council’s traffic expert, Mr Black supports the development of such a plan and had
proposed amendments to the conditions proposed by the applicant. Those amendments have
been included in the conditions of consent.
One matter raised by a number of submitters related to the proposed days and hours of
construction. As a consequence of those concerns, no construction is to occur outside of the
hours of 7.30am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. Construction on Sundays and public holidays is
restricted to low‐ noise generating activities such painting, plastering and other finishing works.
As yet the details in respect of construction timing, staging and duration are not fully known
and therefore able to be provided in detail. To address such uncertainty requires effective
communication with adjacent owners and occupiers. To that end the applicant had proposed
the establishment of a Neighbour Liaison Group which would be to provide an ‘overarching
framework’ for ongoing engagement regarding the implementation of the construction process.
Such a mechanism provides the opportunity for any specific concerns and requirements of
adjacent residents and owners to be highlighted, worked through and addressed.
12 S42A Report‐ Para 247
20
Operational Traffic Effects and Parking
I was advised that the District Plan does not require any parking to be provided for
developments within the city centre. Some limited parking is to be provided for theatre staff
with access off Sapper Moore‐Jones Place.
I note that the applicant has proposed some permanent changes to the on‐street parking
arrangements on both Victoria Street and Sapper Moore‐Jones Place. This is intended to assist
with the provision of drop‐off and pick‐up areas for those using the facility.
The applicant proposes to develop an Operational Traffic Management Plan (OTMP) which
would have as its objective, the management of traffic generated by the operation of the
theatre together with consideration of public transport movements and other modes, during
theatre use that priorities the safety of all road users.13 This management plan would require
certification by the Council. The concerns of submitters such as the de Leeuws are noted
regarding the potential restriction on access to their properties and the OTMP will need to
address these concerns.
Concerns were raised regarding the potential use of private carparks by theatre patrons, given
that no theatre parking is being provided. In considering this matter, I have concluded that is a
matter for the owners of private carparks to address. The District Plan does not require car‐
parking for developments within the city centre, and if owners of private carparks have concerns
about unauthorised use, then that is a matter for their consideration.
Loading and access
Vehicle access to the site is only available from sapper Moore‐Jones Place and will also provide
access to the theatre loading dock. I note that both the applicant’s and Council’s traffic experts
agree that appropriate truck manoeuvring can occur.
Pedestrians and Cycling
Very good pedestrian access is provided to the site given its location. The applicant has
proposed the OTMP to have provisions in place to manage pedestrian movements over a
defined threshold.
Concerns had been raised regarding the potential effects on pedestrians from truck movements
on Sapper Moore‐Jones Place and the loss of pedestrian orientated space in this locality. To
address these concerns a condition of consent has been imposed requiring that the detailed
design of Sapper Moore‐Jones Place shared space be provided to the Council prior to
13 S42A Report‐ Paras 268‐271
21
commencement of construction. This would also include a safety audit and how the delineation
of pedestrians and provision of safe access will occur.
6.7 GEOTECHNICAL EFFECTS
The subject site slopes down from Victoria Street to the east towards the Waikato River.
I was advised14 that part of site’s north‐eastern edge is identified by the District Plan as
being subject to the Waikato Riverbank and Gully Hazard Area. This area acknowledges
that the slopes and soil types of the Waikato Riverbank and Gully systems potentially
make these areas more susceptible to land instability.
I also note that the District Plan has ‘Specific Standard 7.5.1’, which relates to the
Protection of the Riverbank, which applies to sites such as the subject site. This requires
that any work located within 15m of the river boundary is carried out in a manner which
ensures the protection of the riverbank; requirement of an assessment by a qualified
geotechnical engineer on the stability of the area and the measures required to ensure
that the stability of the riverbank is maintained, with particular regard to the avoidance
of damage to the adjoining riverbank reserve and the river. In addition, all stormwater
discharges are to be reticulated directly to the Council’s stormwater system and no
discharge to the riverbank is permitted.
Some submissions had highlighted concerns in respect of the stability of the riverbank
area and the adequacy of the geotechnical assessment. Concerns were also expressed
about the lack of detail regarding the proposed redevelopment of Embassy Park and
associated geotechnical matters.
In addition to the assessment provided by the applicant (Mr Mills), the Council had the
geotechnical assessment reviewed.
The geotechnical experts concluded that the site is suitable for the proposal and that the
works can be feasibly undertaken without detrimentally affecting the existing slopes.15
Conditions have been imposed to ensure that the detailed design of the retaining walls
and foundations are subject to additional geotechnical investigation; that the detailed
design of earthworks, retaining walls and foundations is carried out or reviewed by a
Chartered Professional Engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering or an experienced
Engineering Geologist; that slope stability risk is not exacerbated by surface runoff from
the site during construction; and that a monitoring plan is developed and that pre‐
14 S42A report‐ Paras 326,327 15 S42a Report‐ Paras343‐345
22
condition surveys of nearby properties are undertaken prior to works starting on site
given the potential for settlement and subsidence from ground movements.
I conclude that any potential geotechnical effects can be appropriately managed and will
be no more than minor given the assessments undertaken, and the conditions of consent
imposed.
6.8 CONTAMINATION EFFECTS
The applicant had undertaken a Preliminary Contaminated Site Investigation (PSI) which
had identified the potential for contamination to exist within soil across the subject site
from a number of previous activities on the site including dry cleaning; historic building
fires with a potential concentration of heavy metals and asbestos in soils; coal storage
and uncontrolled site filling.
Given these activities and that substantial earthworks are proposed the proposal must
be considered in accordance with the Resource Management (National Environmental
Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health)
Regulations 2011 (NESCS).
Given the above situation, the PSI had recommended that further investigation is
required in the form of a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI).16
Accordingly, conditions are imposed that provide a framework by which to ensure a DSI
is prepared and implemented in accordance with Regulation3 of the NESCS. These define
what the appropriate approach will be to investigate/remedy/manage soil contamination
issues within the subject site and ensure the potential for site workers and future users
to be exposed to soil contamination is managed to an acceptable level.
6.9 INFRASTRUCTURE & EARTHWORKS EFFECTS
A range of issues had been raised in submissions regarding concerns about stormwater
calculations; and sizing of pipes for a 10 year storm event; that the water supply analysis was
not in accordance with the HCC model; lack of detail regarding Embassy park such as retaining
effect/ surcharge on 240 Victoria Street and also related to details on drainage/ discharge
measures; and that consent condition be impose requiring compliance with the relevant NZ
Standard regarding water supply. Concerns were also highlighted regarding the volume of
earthworks and dust effects during construction.
16 S42A report‐Para 351
23
I note that the Council17 concurred with the applicant’s AEE assessment in respect of
infrastructure and earthworks matters and that the HCC wastewater and water network can
accommodate the proposal.
In respect of earthworks, sedimentation and dust effects arising during construction, the
Council confirmed that the conditions of consent meet the relevant HCC requirements. In
addition, reference is made to the relevant Waikato Regional Council erosion and sediment
control guidelines.
I conclude that the proposal will not generate any significant adverse effects on the
environment that cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated through conditions of
resource consent, and that overall the actual or potential adverse effects on the
environment will be less than minor.
6.10 NOISE & VIBRATION EFFECTS
The s42A report18 outlines that the “District Plan seeks to ensure activities have minimal
adverse noise and vibration effects on other activities and sites, consistent with the
amenity values of the receiving environment. Section 16 of the Act also seeks to ensure
that the emission of noise does not exceed a reasonable level”.
I note that there are no specified noise limits for the Central City Zone within which the
subject site is located, in the District Plan for activities within the zone, including in
relation to residential activity.
Mr Cumberpatch 19outlined that while there are “no specified noise limits for the Central
City Zone within the District Plan, Charcoalblue identify that 60dB LAeq (15‐mins) has
previously been used by HCC as reasonable standard to achieve for CBD receivers. This
CBD limit and the District Plan requirements forms the ‘proposed noise criteria”.
The applicant’s ‘Acoustic Report’ had calculated that calculates the resultant noise levels
from the auditorium (the highest calculated noise source) as outlined in the s42A report,
“ at 1m away from the most affected noise sensitive premises on Riro Street is predicted
to be 22dBA and 40dBA at the CBD areas”. The Acoustic Report noted that this predicted
noise level was significantly less than the proposed noise criteria referred to above. Riro
Street is the nearest noise sensitive receiver being the closest residentially zoned site
which is across the Waikato River.
17 S42A report‐ Paras 378‐384 18 S42A report‐ Paras 385‐387 19 S42A Report‐ Para 391
24
The Acoustic Report acknowledges that while the specific building services plant required
to be located within the main mechanical plantroom of the theatre (basement level), at
the rooftop level over the loading dock and within the hotel are not known at this stage;
along with the noise levels from their simultaneous operation, they would be designed
to meet the proposed noise criteria.
I note the advice of Mr McGregor (Councils Environmental Health Unit Manager) which
is summarised in the s42A report, which states that the maximum level of predicted noise
within the CBD is the 40dBA from the auditorium. This would have none to a minimal
impact on the existing ambient level in the CBD. It was further noted that the “noise from
people concentrating in Embassy Plaza, either on a casual basis or for an event at the
proposed theatre, is not only consistent with the purpose of this zone but also not
expected to exceed 60dB LAeq”20.
A concern expressed by submitters residing at 238 and 240 Victoria Street was for the
installation of double glazing. However, I note that there are no noise limits in the CBD; that any
likely noise is unlikely to exceed the 60dB LAeq (15‐mins) which the Council uses as a reasonable
standard to achieve for receivers of noise in the CBD; and that any noise emanating from the
theatre facility to be no more than 40dBA for receivers in the CBD 30 metres away.21
Several submitters expressed concerns about construction noise and vibration. In respect of
these matters the development and implementation of a Construction Noise and Vibration
Management Plan (CNVMP) is key to addressing concerns in respect of noise and vibration
during construction. In conjunction with these matters, restriction on the hours of construction
were also requested. Furthermore, a pre‐condition survey has been requested by several
submitters prior to construction commencing to be used as a baseline to assess any damage
arising from construction activity and in particular vibration.
All of these matters have been addressed through consent conditions with a requirement for a
CNVMP, restriction on the hours of construction, and pre‐condition surveys. The apartments/
units to which the survey will apply, have been outlined in a condition and defined on Annexure
B attached to this decision.
Conditions relating to addressing any effects of vibration have also been imposed.
Given the mitigation proposed by the applicant and the consent conditions, I am of the opinion
that any effects arising from operational and construction noise and vibration will be no more
than minor.
20 S42A Report‐ Para 414 21 S42A Report‐ Para 395
25
6.11 SOCIAL & CULTURAL EFFECTS
I was advised through the application documentation and the evidence of the applicant that
there would be positive social and cultural benefits arising from the proposal. It would provide
significant opportunities for the growth of arts and cultural events through the provision of high‐
quality performance space and be a significant asset not just for Hamilton but for the wider
Waikato region.
Several submissions outlined that the proposal would bring social and civic benefits including
the rejuvenation and revitalisation of the CBD, and in particular the area of the CBD where the
proposal is to be located.
I further note that the District Plan seeks to see business centres providing a focus on such things
as entertainment activities that provide for the cultural and social needs of the community22.
The District Plan also seeks to recognise and promote the relationship tangata whenua have
with the city and ensure any development considers effects on tangata whenua relationships,
values aspirations and roles in respect of an area.23
The support of THAWK was outlined in its submission and by its representatives who presented
at the hearing although this was subject to an agreed consultation plan to ‘provide for the
cultural safety of the proposal’ during construction. Conditions of consent provide for this to
occur.
During the course of the hearing Te Haa o Whenua o Kirikiriroa (THAWK) representatives
indicated that a draft Cultural Impact Assessment had been prepared and was not far from being
signed off. I received a copy of the CIA attached to the reply submissions. In Mr Lanning’s reply
submissions, he noted that the applicant agreed with the recommendations of the CIA and that
no changes to conditions were required as broadly, the CIA recommendations relate to how the
relevant conditions of consent are to be implemented. He also outlined that he had been
instructed that THAWK agreed with that position.
I also note that there was discussion about the mandate of THAWK and that of Nga Mana Toopu
Kirikiriroa (NAMTOK), and the view held by HNZPT that NAMTOK should have been engaged in
the resource consent process. Given the evidence of Mr Bidois (THAWK)24 who helpfully
provided background to this matter, I am satisfied that THAWK, not NAMTOK has the mandate
of behalf of mana whenua and can therefore speak in respect of cultural matters.
As noted above, THAWK submitted in support of the proposal.
22 DP Objective 2.2.4 23 DP policy 2.2.9a & b 24 THAWK Evidence
26
6.12 OTHER EFFECTS
I note that two submitters highlighted concerns regarding the lack of detail in respect of
Embassy Park including concerns relating to lighting. It was recommended by the reporting
officer that a condition be imposed requiring the provision of a detailed landscape design plan
for the park for approval by the Council prior to any works commencing. Conditions of consent
also require details of any exterior lighting of the theatre be provided to the Council for
certification again prior to construction commencing and that any lighting meets the Council’s
relevant standards including compliance with relevant lux limits and light spill, contained in the
District Plan
6.13 POSITIVE EFFECTS
There are positive effects arising from the granting of consent to the proposal. As outlined
earlier in section 6.11, there are positive effects through the establishment and operation of a
significant theatre complex for Hamilton and the wider region, and to provide for the social and
cultural wellbeing of people.
There is also the restoration of a significant part of the former Hamilton hotel including the
façade adjoining Victoria Street, and overall redevelopment of the subject site which is in a
somewhat overgrown and dilapidated state. It will also provide for enhanced connections to
the Waikato River both visually, and physically through the provision of access.
The proposal will also contribute to the rejuvenation and redevelopment of the area of the CBD
where it is to be located.
7. DISTRICT PLAN: OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
7.1 DISTRICT PLAN
The District Plan contains a range of policies and objectives of relevance to the consideration of
the application. The s42A report25 contains a comprehensive assessment of objectives and
policies and having considered this assessment I accept it and generally concur with the
conclusions reached.
Of particular note however, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the District Plan’s
anticipated role in respect of the central city as a focus for entertainment and commercial
activities and will contribute to the social and cultural, environmental and economic needs of
25 s42A Report‐ Attachment 3
27
the wider community. As part of that, the proposal will assist with the redevelopment and
rejuvenation of the CBD and in particular the locality where the subject site is located.
I note that while the removal of the scheduled trees will have an adverse effect on the amenity
values of the area particularly in respect of the riverside area, the enhanced visual and physical
connections between the central city to the river area that will result from the proposal being
developed will enable the values and connections to the river to be enhanced.
Given the engagement undertaken by the applicant and mana whenua support for the proposal,
I consider that appropriate consideration has been given to any effects on the values and
relationships of mana whenua, with a commitment to ongoing engagement and participation
by mana whenua through THAWK. The views expressed by THAWK in respect of the urupa have
been considered and extra care needs to be taken in respect of any development in the location
of the urupa although it is not certain that it exists on the site.
While the proposal will result in the loss of heritage values though a significant part of the
former hotel being demolished, and this is considered to be a more than minor effect on
heritage values, there are positive effects arising through the restoration of the hotel façade
and the re‐use of key heritage elements in the complex.
In respect of urban design matters, it is considered that the proposal responds positively to its
context and generally in accordance with the policy and objective framework of the District
Plan.
Having considered the policies and objectives and the assessments provided, in particular by Mr
Cumberpatch, and subject to the conditions of consent, the proposal overall will not be contrary
to the objectives and policies of the District Plan.
8. RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
8.1 NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS & NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
It is considered that there are no National Policy Statements which are of relevance to the
consideration of the application.
The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing
Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) (NECCS) Regulations 2011 ensure that land
affected by contaminants in soil is appropriately assessed and made safe for human use.
As outlined in application documentation and the s42A report and in section 7 of this decision,
a Preliminary Contaminated Site Investigation identified that potential site contamination may
28
exist given the previous land uses on the site.26 Given this situation consideration of the
proposal is required in accord with the NESCS. To address any potential soil contamination
issues a suite of conditions have been imposed.
8.2 REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT AND PLANS
The Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) provides the broad regional level
policy direction and overview of the resource management issues in the Waikato
region, and sets the direction and foundation of the regional and district plans
which must give effect to the RPS.
A range of objectives and policies are of relevance to the consideration of the proposal. The
s42A report27 provides an assessment of these matters and I concur with the assessment and
conclusions reached.
In respect of the health and well‐being of the Waikato River, the proposal will contribute to the
restoration and protection of the river through stormwater treatment and implementation of
erosion and sediment control measures during construction. There will be improved public
access provided to increase connections to the river for the community and an ongoing
framework for engagement and working with mana whenua. There has been appropriate
recognition of tangata whenua values.
In respect of heritage values, and while demolition of part of the hotel is proposed, it is intended
that the proposal will recognise the historic and cultural values of the hotel through restoration
of the façade and re‐use of key heritage items.
It is intended to enhance public access to the Waikato River and a promenade is to be
established to connect Embassy Park and Sapper Moore‐Jones Place. This will also include a
connection to the existing lower level promenade.
Any matters related to natural hazards and risks can be adequately mitigated and consent
conditions have been imposed to support this and therefore the site is considered suitable for
the proposal.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the policies and objectives of
the RPS.
26 S42A report‐ Paras 346‐352 27 S42A Report‐Section 22.6
29
8.3 VISION AND STRATEGY FOR WAIKATO RIVER (TE TURE WHAIMANA O TE AWA O
WAIKATO)
The Waikato‐Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 gives effect to
the Deed of Settlement signed by the Crown and Waikato‐Tainui on 17 December 2009.
The Settlement Act has an overarching purpose to restore and protect the health and
wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations and applies to the Waikato River
and activities within its catchment affecting the Waikato River. It is deemed to be part of
the RPS.
The installation of a stormwater treatment system is part of the proposal which will
contribute to improved water quality of water entering the river, where currently no
stormwater treatment is provided for the runoff from the subject site. This will assist to
improve the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.
Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato also pursues the restoration and protection of
the relationships of Waikato River iwi according to their tikanga and kawa with the
Waikato River, including their economic, social, cultural, and spiritual relationships. The
applicant has proposed a framework for ongoing engagement with mana whenua which
will contribute to achieving this.
The proposal will improve the visual and physical connections between the central city
and the river which will also contribute to the restoration and protection of the
relationships of the Waikato Region’s communities with the Waikato River.
Overall it is considered the proposal will contribute to the restoration and protection of
the Waikato River as sought by Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato.
9. OTHER MATTERS
The s42A report refers to a number of other plans and strategies including;
Waikato‐Tainui Environmental Plan
Council Strategies‐ Access Hamilton; Hamilton City River Plan; Hamilton Central City
Transformation Plan; heritage Plan; Hamilton Arts Agenda
I have considered the assessment by the reporting officer and generally concur with the
conclusions reached in respect of each of these plans. The proposal in my opinion does not
appear to be inconsistent with these plans and in respect of some, it assists in giving effect to
them.
30
10. NO MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS‐ HERITAGE BUILDINGS
Notwithstanding any ranking of heritage buildings contained in the District Plan, I note that
there are no obligations on landowners to maintain and use such buildings.
The future of the scheduled building could be one of ongoing deterioration. While this is not a
material consideration in my deliberations, I wish to note that regulation through planning
instruments can often only go so far to achieve the protection of heritage.
In this case, there will be restoration of that part of the building not being demolished including
the building façade facing Victoria Street which will contribute to heritage and amenity values
of the area.
11. GATEWAY TEST‐ SECTION 104D
Having considered the effects of the proposal on the environment , I have concluded as
discussed in section 7, that there are effects that are greater than minor in respect of the
removal of trees listed on the District Plan schedule of protected trees; and the
demolition of a significant part of the old Hamilton Hotel. Given this situation the
application fails the test in s104D(1)(a) of the RMA.
However, after considering the relevant policies and objectives of the District Plan and
the expert evidence provided to me, I conclude that the proposal overall, will not be
contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan. Therefore, the proposal passes
the test in s104D(1)(b), and I can therefore consider the proposal on its merits.
12. PART 2: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991
I note that both Mr Cumberpatch and Mr Vinall agree that a Part 2 assessment of the
proposal is not required. Regard to Part 2 is to occur when it is appropriate and necessary
to do so. In this situation the Hamilton City Plan has been competently prepared given it
has been through a relatively recent Schedule 1 process and matters have been finalised
through the Environment Court and it is now operative. During the course of the hearing
no particular gaps in the District Plan were brought to my attention.
Given this situation and the expert evidence presented to me, I have therefore not had
recourse to Part 2 of the RMA in making an overall broad judgement on the proposal and
granting consent to it.
The proposal does overall in my opinion achieve the sustainable management purpose of
the RMA.
31
13. CONCLUSION
I have considered all matters placed before me including all application documentation,
evidence, submissions and subsequent statements of evidence made by the parties at the
hearing, the section 42A report and associated reports from Council staff, together with the
relevant RMA and District Plan provisions.
Overall, I consider the proposal is not contrary to the policies and objectives of the District Plan
subject to the imposition of consent conditions. Accordingly, the proposal passed the test in
s104D(1)(b) of the RMA to be considered as a non‐complying activity.
While the effects are more than minor regarding heritage values in respect of demolition of
part of the former Hamilton Hotel building , and the removal of 3 scheduled tees, I consider
that on balance such effects are acceptable given the proposal to establish a regional theatre
complex, and the mitigation proposed to address these effects.
The proposal is considered to be an appropriate use of the subject site and will assist in the
rejuvenation and re‐vitalisation of the CBD as envisaged and supported by the District Plan.
The consent conditions in my view will avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects arising from the
proposal and impose a range of requirements to address concerns highlighted by submitters
and to address matters prior to, during, and post construction.
14. DECISION
That pursuant to sections 104, 104B, 104D, 108 and 108AA of the Resource
Management Act 1991, the Hamilton City Council grants consent (consent no‐
010.2018.0010143.001) to the resource consent application of the Waikato Regional
Theatre Governance Panel to establish and operate a Waikato Regional Theatre
facility, which includes a 1,300‐seat auditorium and associated theatre facilities,
a conference centre, hotel and other retail/hospitality tenancies, and including
the following activities being:
‐ The partial removal of, and external and internal alterations to, the Hamilton
Hotel; an 'A' Ranked Built Heritage Item;
‐ The removal of three scheduled Significant Trees;
‐ Works within Embassy Park to create a plaza and level access to the main
theatre entrance and access to the riverfront promenade; and
32
‐ The installation of a 5m wide riverfront promenade including works within a
'Group 2' Significant Archaeological Site and the Waikato Riverbank and
Gully Hazard Area;
and in accordance with the plans and documents outlined in Annexure A and
referenced by Condition 6; and subject to the following conditions;
General conditions
Definition of Terms
1. In these conditions:
(a) “HCC DP” means the Hamilton City Council Operative District Plan 2017
(b) “BPO” means Best Practicable Option
(c) “Certify”, “Certification” and “Certified” in relation to plans or management
plans means assessed by Council staff acting in a technical certification
capacity, and in particular as to whether the document or matter is consistent
with, or sufficient to meet, the conditions of this consent in terms of the
matters set out in the conditions;
(d) “Commencement of Construction” means commencement of any
construction works for the Project. For the avoidance of doubt, it includes
demolition activities (other than those able to be undertaken as a Permitted
Activity) and earthworks but excludes site investigations, fencing, and any
activities that do not need resource consent / are permitted activities;
(e) “Condition Survey” means an external visual inspection or a detailed
condition survey
(f) “Consent Holder” means Waikato Regional Theatre Governance Panel;
(g) “Council” means Hamilton City Council;
(h) “Damage” includes Aesthetic, Serviceability, Stability, but does not include
Negligible Damage;
(i) “DSI” means Detailed Site Investigation;
(j) “External Visual Inspection” means a condition survey undertaken for the
purpose of detecting any new external Damage or deterioration of existing
external Damage. Includes as a minimum a visual inspection of the exterior
and a dated photographic record of all observable exterior Damage;
(k) “HNZPT” means Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga;
33
(l) “Neighbour Liaison Group” all owners or occupiers of the buildings identified
in Annexure D to these conditions insofar as they want to participate;
(m) “Project” means all works associated with the partial demolition of the
Hamilton Hotel building and demolition of all other buildings on the site, the
removal of three scheduled trees, and construction of the new Waikato
Regional Theatre and Hamilton Hotel (including construction within adjacent
public land);
(n) “Retained Trees” means Tree 16.1 (Norfolk Pine) and Tree 16.3 (Bunya Pine)
as identified in the Tree Location Plan included as Annexure B to these
conditions;
(o) “RMA” means the Resource Management Act 1991;
(p) “Services” means fibre optic cables, sanitary drainage, stormwater drainage,
gas and water mains, power and telephone installations and infrastructure,
road infrastructure and assets such as footpaths, kerbs, catch‐pits and street
furniture.
Lapse
2. Under section 125 of the RMA, this consent (010.2018.0010143.001) will lapse
five years after the date they are granted unless:
i) The consent is given effect to; or
ii) The council extends the period after which the consent lapses.
Monitoring
3. The consent holder shall pay the council any further monitoring charge or
charges to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred to ensure
compliance with the conditions of this consent, incurred over and above the
initial paid monitoring deposit.
Advice note:
The initial monitoring deposit is to cover the cost of inspecting the site, carrying out tests,
reviewing conditions, updating files, etc., all being work to ensure compliance with the
resource consent. In order to recover actual and reasonable costs, monitoring of
conditions, in excess of those covered by the deposit, shall be charged at the relevant
hourly rate applicable at the time as set out in the Council’s fees and charges. The consent
holder will be advised of the further monitoring charge. Only after all conditions of the
resource consent have been met, will the council issue a letter confirming compliance on
request of the consent holder.
34
Access to project area
4. The agents of the Council shall have access to all relevant parts of the project area
at all reasonable times for the purpose of carrying out inspections, surveys,
investigations, tests, measurements and/or to take samples in accordance with
the requirements of this consent.
Review condition
5. Pursuant to section 128 of the RMA, the conditions of this consent may be
reviewed by Council at the consent holder's cost 12 months after
commencement of operation of the Waikato Regional Theatre, and thereafter
on an annual basis for a period of five years, in order to deal with any adverse
effect on the environment which may arise or potentially arise from the
exercise of this consent and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage,
in particular adverse effects on the transportation network.
Activity in Accordance with Plans
6. All demolition, construction and activities authorised by this consent shall be
undertaken in general accordance with the reports, drawings and all
information submitted with the resource consent application, as detailed in
Annexure A, referenced by Council as the approved drawing and document set.
7. In the event of inconsistency between the plans and documents referred to in
Condition 6 and the conditions of this consent, the conditions shall prevail.
Pre‐commencement meetings
8. Not less than (5) days prior to commencement of any works on site, the Consent
Holder shall hold one or more pre‐start meetings located on site. The
meeting(s) shall include discussion relating to the measures required by the
certified management plans (CEMP, HCMP, TPMP, CTMP, CNVMP).
Mana Whenua Engagement
9. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of Construction,
the Consent Holder shall confirm and submit to Council’s Planning Guidance
Unit Manager (or nominee) a framework to ensure appropriate engagement
with Mana Whenua during the detailed design and construction phases of the
Project. The framework shall (as a minimum) include:
(a) The methods for identifying and engaging with Mana Whenua;
(b) The process for involvement of Mana Whenua in the preparation and
implementation of the management and environmental monitoring plans
as they relate to:
35
(i) Managing and monitoring water quality;
(ii) Managing and monitoring environmental risk;
(iii) Archaeological observation of earthworks.
(c) The process for involvement of Mana Whenua in the preparation of the
detailed landscape design plan for Embassy Park and any associated
cultural narrative.
(d) As a minimum, the matters identified in (b) above shall be discussed in the
preparation of the Construction Environment Management Plan required
under Condition 59.
(e) The requirements for construction management and monitoring plans
referenced in (c) above shall include details of feedback received from
Mana Whenua, the measures proposed to address feedback and / or
reasons why specific feedback has not been addressed.
Neighbour Liaison Group
10. Prior to the Commencement of Construction, the Consent Holder shall appoint a
Project Liaison Coordinator who will establish, manage and facilitate a
Neighbour Liaison Group. The Neighbour Liaison Group shall thereafter
communicate monthly (and meet as necessary) until construction works
associated with the Project are complete.
11. The purpose of the Neighbour Liaison Group is to provide a mechanism for direct
engagement with identified owners and occupiers regarding the
implementation of the works on site. Specifically, the Neighbour Liaison Group
shall provide the forum for (but not be limited to) the following:
(a) The Neighbourhood Liaison Coordinator to provide Project progress updates
and likely commencement of construction works and programme;
(b) Members of the Neighbourhood Liaison Group to receive information on and
provide feedback and input into the development of the CEMP, CTMP and
CNVMP and the detailed design of Embassy Park;
(c) Opportunities to provide feedback on the success or otherwise of the CEMP,
CTMP and CNVMP as construction works progress and feedback and input
into the detailed design of Embassy Park and any variation of the CEMP,
CTMP and CNVMP; and
36
12. The Project Liaison Coordinator shall keep a record of information provided to
the Neighbour Liaison Group, and feedback and input received. This record
shall be provided to the Council’s Planning Guidance Unit Compliance
Monitoring Officer monthly until construction works associated with the
Project are complete or the Neighbourhood Liaison Group confirm no further
meetings are necessary.
Landscaping
13. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of landscaping works,
the Consent Holder shall submit details of the species, size and position of the
Replacement Trees (as required under Condition 130) to Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) in consultation with Council’s Arborist)
for certification that the species, size and position of the Replacement Trees is
sufficient to provide for the ongoing health of the trees and their growth to
mature specimens.
14. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of works within the
Natural Open Space Zone, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to
Council for certification by the Council (Manager – Parks and Recreation Unit
(or nominee)). The plan must include details of, but not be limited to:
(a) The identified areas of vegetation removal;
(b) The identified areas for proposed planting; and
(c) A planting plan including species, size at planting and methodology.
15. The objective of the detailed landscape plan is to ensure effects of the vegetation
removal works within the Natural Open Space Zone as part of proposal are
appropriately mitigated.
15a. The design, construction and maintenance of the landscaping and planting
should be in accordance with relevant sections (Section 7 – landscaping in
particular) of the Regional Infrastructure Technical Specifications, unless where
otherwise expressly accepted by the Manager – Parks and Recreation Unit, or
their nominee.
15b. That prior to the Waikato Regional Theatre commencing operation, the consent
holder at their cost, shall have completed all works necessary to implement the
approved detailed replacement planting and landscape plan required under
conditions 13 and 14.
37
Embassy Park
16. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of works within
Embassy Park, the Consent Holder shall submit a detailed landscape design
plan for Embassy Park to Council for approval by Council (Manager ‐ Parks and
Recreation Unit or their nominee).
The plan, based on Revised Embassy Plaza Concept and Cross Sections Rev B,
Jasmax, September 2019, must include details of, but not be limited to:
(a) The proposed site levels, including how access for people of all levels of mobility has been taken into account;
(b) Pedestrian and cycling connections to the existing lower river path;
(c) How future pedestrian and cycling connections to the proposed riverfront promenade has been taken into account;
(d) A plan of the planted areas detailing the proposed plant species, plant sourcing, plant sizes at time of planting, plant locations, density of planting, and timing of planting;
(e) A programme of establishment and post establishment protection and maintenance (fertilising, weed removal/spraying, replacement of dead/poorly performing plants, watering to maintain soil moisture for a period of 24 months following planting;
(f) The extent, materiality and finished levels of paving;
(g) The location, materiality, height and design of fencing and retaining walls;
(h) The details of drainage, soil preparation, tree pits, staking, irrigation;
(i) The construction details of all hard landscape elements, park furniture and public art (including paving, seating, bike racks, drinking fountains, bins, the Riff Raff sculpture etc);
(j) An irrigation system;
(k) A stormwater management system that ensures no discharge to the riverbank;
(l) A CPTED analysis of the design;
(m) Provision of a public toilet;
(n) Incorporation of cultural and social narrative;
(o) How any feedback received from the Neighbour Liaison Group and Mana Whenua Engagement (Conditions 9‐12) has been taken into account; and
38
(p) A programme for maintenance hand over to Council;
(q) Details of the location, design and lux levels necessary for the function of Embassy Park while minimising light spill to adjacent residential properties.
These plans shall be supported by specifications that describe in a written form
the more specific technical landscape matters such as quality of materials.
17. That prior to the Waikato Regional Theatre commencing operation, the consent
holder at their cost, shall have completed all works necessary to implement the
approved detailed landscape plan for Embassy Park.
18. The design, construction and maintenance of the landscaping and planting
should be in accordance with relevant sections (Section 7 – landscaping in
particular) of the Regional Infrastructure Technical Specifications, unless where
otherwise expressly accepted by the Manager – Parks and Recreation Unit, or
their nominee.
Advice Notes
No approval from Parks and Recreation Unit of Hamilton City Council as
landowner for the temporary use of Embassy Park for a construction site is
provided as part of this approved resource consent. Please contact Parks and
Recreation Unit to obtain prior approval from Manager, Parks and Recreation
Unit, or nominee.
Transportation Design
19. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of Construction of
works within Sapper Moore Jones Place, detailed design information shall be
submitted to Council (Manager, City Transportation Unit) for certification. This
detailed design information must include (but not be limited to) the following:
(a) The Sapper Moore‐Jones Place “shared space”, including:
(i) Details on how parking and vehicle access within the “shared
space” will be managed;
(ii) Details how safe pedestrian access to the proposed riverside
promenade will be maintained;
(iii) How the design has addressed the requirements of
AS2890.2:2002 Off‐street Commercial Vehicle Facilities including
the potential for vehicle roll‐over on Sapper Moore‐Jones Place;
39
(iv) How the design complies with the relevant requirements of SNZ
PAS 4509:2008;
(v) Details on how access to 6 Sapper Moore‐Jones will be
maintained;
(vi) Details on the proposed surface;
(vii) Details on street lighting; and
(viii) Details on road marking.
(b) The detailed design of the raised platform at the Victoria Street/Sapper Moore‐Jones Place intersection in general accordance with RITS Drawing D3.10.6. The design shall include a review of semi‐trailer clearance to the building canopy;
(c) The detailed design of the basement car park and access ramp;
(d) Identified areas for future expansion of cycle parking facilities; and
(e) Details on how the required approval processes for permanent changes to on‐street parking have been addressed under the Local Government Act.
20. The consent holder shall arrange for an independent road safety audit of both
the detailed design and post‐construction of the Sapper Moore‐Jones Place
“shared space” to be undertaken in accordance with the 'Road Safety Audit
Procedures for Projects Guidelines, May 2013'. The road safety audit shall
specifically consider:
(a) Roll‐over risk for heavy vehicles including both semi‐trailer and rigid trucks;
(b) Vehicle access to 6 Sapper Moore‐Jones Place; and
(c) Interaction of pedestrians, light vehicles and manoeuvring heavy vehicles within the shared space.
21. A copy of each road safety audit shall be provided to Council (Manager, City
Transportation Unit). Any audit recommendations and design changes arising
from the preliminary road safety audit shall be agreed with the Manager, City
Transportation Unit (or nominee) prior to the detailed design being
undertaken. Any audit recommendations and design changes arising from the
detailed design road safety audit shall be agreed with the Manager, City
Transportation Unit (or nominee) prior to construction being undertaken.
40
22. The vehicle access, loading dock, parking and manoeuvring area shall be formed,
drained and sealed, and thereafter maintained, in a permanent dust‐free all‐
weather surface suitable for the type and quantity of vehicles using it.
Lighting
23. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of Construction of the
Waikato Regional Theatre, the Consent Holder shall provide details of the
permanent functional and accent lighting of the exterior of the Theatre
including the screen and the fly tower shall be provided to Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) for certification that the light spill on to
any other site shall not exceed 10 lux (horizontal and vertical) when measured
or calculated at points 1.5m within the boundary of any other site.
Advice Note:
Lighting designed to illuminate public spaces and transport corridors, including
roads, public car parks and amenity areas, shall be designed in accordance with
the Australian and New Zealand AS/NZS suite of standards.
Built heritage
24. The consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced
Conservation Architect (the Appointed Conservation Architect) to observe the
construction work and ensure that the Project is carried out in accordance with
the conditions of this consent.
25. At least twenty (20) working days prior to Commencement of Construction, the
Appointed Conservation Architect shall undertake an initial full photographic
survey of all the buildings within the subject site and the former gardens. A
digital copy of all photographs shall be provided to the Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Manager) and a copy shall be held on site for the duration of the
Project.
26. The Appointed Conservation Architect shall continue to monitor all work
involving heritage fabric throughout the duration of the contract and shall
prepare a monthly report which will ultimately provide an archival record of
the works carried out to the former Hamilton Hotel throughout the duration of
the contract. The record which will inform Conditions 138‐140 shall also
include evidence of earlier finishes, construction techniques, paint colours,
floor finishes and the like that may be uncovered during the course of the
works.
41
27. The final design of the fly tower shall have input from the Appointed
Conservation Architect on the final design and colour of the tower. The
proposed finish to the theatre and tower is described as “stained concrete”. A
sample of the proposed finish shall be provided to Council (Heritage Specialist)
for information and comment prior to the completion of the final design.
Scaffolding design
28. Prior to the erection of any scaffolding for access to the exterior of the historic
Hamilton Hotel building, a temporary scaffold design shall be prepared by the
Consent Holder and submitted to the Council (Planning Guidance Manager (or
nominee) in consultation with Council Heritage Specialist). The scaffolding shall
only be erected once the Council has certified in writing that the proposed
design is unlikely to damage any heritage fabric of the building. All scaffolding
shall be erected in accordance with the certified design.
Archaeology
29. Subject to the express requirements of any Archaeological Authority granted
under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, prior to
Commencement of Construction, a suitably qualified archaeologist (the
Appointed Archaeologist) shall be present on site to monitor the initial
subsurface earthworks (including the removal of any sealed surfaces).
Advice Note
An archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act
2014 will need to be obtained from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as
appropriate, to modify, damage or destroy any of archaeological sites to be
affected during the construction works.
Engineering
30. The consent holder shall submit engineering plans including (but not limited to)
cross‐sections, long‐sections and associated details for roading, water,
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and other relevant items to Council
(Strategic Development Unit Manager (or nominee)) prior to building consent
application for building and construction work commencing onsite, this plan
shall be amended by the Consent Holder as required until stamped ‘Accepted’
by Strategic Development Unit.
31. All engineering works and designs shall be in general accordance with the
Regional Infrastructure Technical Specifications (available from the internet at
www.hcc.govt.nz).
42
32. The consent holder shall retain the services of a suitably professional qualified
person to oversee the construction of any infrastructure required for the
development. This person shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to
approved construction plans, quality systems, and project completion
requirements. The name and contact details of this person shall be nominated
on all engineering plans submitted to Council (Strategic Development Unit
Manager (or nominee)).
33. The Consent holder shall engage a Chartered Professional Engineer,
experienced in the field of pavement engineering, to provide a design solution
to account for the high ground water level.
34. The detailed design of the retaining walls and foundations shall be subject to
additional geotechnical investigations.
35. The detailed design of earthworks, retaining walls and foundations shall be
carried out or reviewed by a Chartered Professional Engineer practicing in
geotechnical engineering or an experienced Engineering Geologist.
36. Service connections shall be rationalised on site. Any private pipes and
connections not required by the proposed development shall be appropriately
disconnected to the satisfaction of the Strategic Development Unit Manager
(or nominee). Removal of existing connections shall be done by Council at the
consent holder's expense.
Water
37. That firefighting water supply shall be provided in accordance with the New
Zealand Firefighting Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008.
38. The development shall be provided with a metered water connection. Water
supply with sufficient volume and pressure for potable and firefighting services
shall be provided in accordance with the building code.
Wastewater
39. The site shall be provided with a wastewater connection, installed by Council to
the site boundary and extended internally by a private contractor to provide
connection to the development.
43
40. All building over or adjacent to the public Waste water infrastructure located
within the site shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
requirements of Section 4.2.9 of the Regional Infrastructure Technical
Specifications, Building Over or Adjacent to Pipelines, with the existing public
wastewater infrastructure within the site being upgraded to the design
standards detailed in Section 5.2.4 of the Regional Infrastructure Technical
Specifications.
41. Any operational wastewater connections to the existing public main crossing the
site boundary shall be kept operational at all times.
42. That the proposed basement carpark stormwater sump shall connect to the
wastewater network and will require a Council trade waste consent.
Stormwater
43. The stormwater management measures as outlined in the resource consent
application shall be in place and fully operational upon the completion of the
development to ensure that stormwater discharge off site is managed in
accordance with the Regional Infrastructure Technical Specifications and are to
be maintained on an ongoing basis by the land owner.
44. The submitted engineering plans (as required by Condition 30) are to include
details of the following:
(a) Stormwater infrastructure and connection to the mains.
(b) Detention tank throttle size and configuration.
(c) Detention tank overflow arrangements for design events greater than the critical design storm.
(d) Appropriate Stormwater 360 filter cartridge sizing to treat catchment area.
(e) Filter chamber overflow arrangements for design events greater than the critical design storm.
45. Stormwater secondary flow paths and ponding area shall be shown on the
engineering plans. The flow paths shall provide for a storm having a 100‐year
ARI. The flow paths are to be clear of any probable building platform and shall
accommodate the rainfall runoff in excess of the stormwater reticulation
design capacity and shall be maintained on an ongoing basis by the landowner.
46. A copy of the operation and maintenance procedures for onsite stormwater
management measures shall be submitted at engineering design stage.
44
Building condition surveys
47. The Consent Holder shall undertake an assessment (internal and external) of the
existing condition and susceptibility of the buildings identified in Condition 48
below in relation the effects of vibration, subsidence and settlement from the
proposed construction works (the Building condition survey). This assessment
is to be documented and forwarded to Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Manager (or nominee)) for certification at least one month prior to
construction work (including earthworks) commencing on the site. The
assessment shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person.
48. The Building condition survey required under Condition 47 shall include the
buildings identified in Annexure D to these conditions as well as any other
buildings identified as likely to be affected based on the preparation of:
(a) The CEMP required under Condition 59; and
(b) The CNVMP required under Condition 71.
49. The Consent Holder shall undertake monitoring of the buildings subject to the
Building condition survey during the construction period at regular intervals
agreed to between the Consent Holder and the Council (Planning Guidance
Unit Manager (or nominee)).
50. The Consent Holder shall provide to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Compliance Monitoring Officer) for certification a written record of the
monitoring required by Condition 49, including:
(a) Details of any damage/changes in condition to the building that has occurred since the commencement of construction;
(b) An assessment as to the likely cause of the identified damage/changes in condition;
(c) Details of any changes in construction methodology/approach that will be taken to prevent any further damage/changes in condition; and
(d) Details of any remedial actions to be taken by the Consent Holder to rectify identified damage/changes in condition.
Access to Third Party Property
45
51. Where any monitoring, inspection or condition survey in this consent requires
access to property owned by a third party, and access is declined or subject to
what the Consent Holder considers to be unreasonable terms, the Consent
Holder shall provide a report to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager
(or nominee)) identifying an alternative monitoring programme to that
established for building condition surveys under Condition 47. The report shall
detail how the monitoring will provide sufficient early detection of deformation
to enable measures to be implemented to prevent Damage to buildings,
structures or Services. Written certification of this report shall be obtained
from the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) before any
alternative monitoring option is implemented.
52. At completion of the construction work, the Consent Holder shall submit a final
report to Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer) that
demonstrates evidence of compliance with Building condition survey
Conditions 49 and 50.
Management Plans – certification and review process
53. Conditions 54‐58 shall apply to all management plans required by these
conditions.
54. No construction shall take place until certification of the management plans
required by Conditions 54‐58 has been obtained.
55. The certified management plans shall be implemented and maintained
throughout the entire period of the works and, as relevant, the life of the
development. All personnel working on the project shall, and where relevant
those responsible for ongoing management of the development, shall be made
aware of the requirements contained in the certified management plans.
Copies of the certified management plans shall be held on the project site at all
times while any activity associated with construction is occurring.
56. Any certified management plan may be amended, if necessary, to reflect minor
changes in design, construction methods or management of effects. Any
amendments are to be agreed by the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager
(or nominee)) in writing prior to implementation of any changes. Re‐
certification is not required under this condition if, the Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) confirms those amendments are within
the scope of the resource consent, and once implemented would result in an
outcome that is similar to or better than that described in the original plan.
46
57. Any changes to a certified management plan that may result in a materially
different outcome shall be submitted to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Manager (or nominee)) for certification that the amendments are within the
scope of the resource consent, give effect to the objectives of the Management
Plan and comply with the requirements contained within the conditions
specific to the management plan. Any such re‐certification must be obtained
prior to the implementation of any changes.
58. Where any certified management plans, prepared in consultation with Mana
Whenua and/or the Neighbour Liaison Group (refer to Conditions 9‐12), are
required to be submitted to the Council for re‐certification in accordance with
Condition 57, the consent holder shall:
(a) Provide a draft updated management plan(s) to Mana Whenua and/or
the Neighbour Liaison Group who shall be given ten (10) working days to
consider and provide written comments on the changes; and
(b) Following this consultation, clearly document to Council the comments
and inputs received from Mana Whenua and/or the Neighbour Liaison
Group, along with a clear explanation of where any feedback has not
been incorporated, and the reasons why not.
Construction Environment Management Plan
59. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of Construction
of each stage of the construction phasing, the consent holder shall prepare a
Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) relative to the stage of
construction being undertaken and submit it to the Council (Planning Guidance
Unit Manager (or nominee)) for certification that it gives effect to the objectives
of and complies with the requirements in Conditions 60 and 61.
60. The objectives of the CEMP are to:
(a) Ensure that the construction works remain within the limits and standards approved under the consent and set out the management procedures and construction methods to be undertaken in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects arising from construction activities;
(b) Ensure that the Consent Holder has prepared a programme of works that will enable the structures and all other associated construction works to be undertaken in a manner that is timely, adequately co‐ordinated and minimises the adverse effects of construction on public land and adjacent property;
47
(c) Ensure that procedures are in place to ensure that the site is managed safely and in a tidy condition throughout the entire construction process;
(d) Avoid damage (beyond the approved modifications required to undertake the works) to the historic Hamilton Hotel building, public land and adjacent property during construction and ensure appropriate mitigation / remediation should damage occur;
(e) Minimise harm from any potential human exposure from contaminants and ensure environmental risk from contaminated material is appropriately managed.
61. The CEMP shall include (but not be limited to) the following matters:
(a) Construction quality assurance:
(i) Contact details of the contractor’s site supervisor or project
manager and the Consent Holder’s Project Liaison Coordinator
(phone, postal address, email address);
(ii) Hours of operation;
(iii) Confirmation of the construction methodology, including for
permanent and temporary structures;
(iv) Location of construction site infrastructure including site offices /
amenities, contractors’ yard access, equipment unloading and
storage areas, contractor car parking and security;
(v) Methods and systems to inform and train all persons working on
the site of potential environmental issues and how to avoid remedy
or mitigate any potential adverse effects;
(vi) Procedures for ensuring that residents, businesses, network utility
operators and road users in the immediate vicinity of construction
areas are given prior notice of the Commencement of Construction
and are informed about the expected duration and effects of the
work;
(vii) Procedures for responding to, recording and reporting complaints
about construction activities;
(viii) Means of providing for the health and safety of the general public;
(ix) Measures to be adopted to maintain land areas affected by the
works in a tidy condition in terms of disposal / storage of rubbish,
storage and unloading of construction materials and similar
construction activities;
48
(x) Procedures for controlling sediment run‐off, dust and the removal
of soil, debris, demolition and construction materials (if any) from
public roads or places adjacent to the work site/s;
(xi) Proposed temporary fencing or other structures along the
boundary of the construction areas in order to delineate
boundaries, maintain site security, prevent unauthorised access,
ensure the safe and practical operation of adjacent sites, and to
avoid intrusion of construction works beyond the construction
area;
(xii) Measures to address the storage of fuels, lubricants, hazardous
and/or dangerous materials, along with contingency procedures to
address emergency spill response(s) and clean up;
(xiii) Procedures for incident management, monitoring and reporting
including review and corrective and preventative action;
(xiv) Site clean‐up following completion of works, including removal of
construction materials and temporary structures; and
(xv) Maintenance of plant in a good state of repair so as not to
produce excessive fumes or leakage of contaminants when
parked or in operation.
(b) Construction methodology, including:
(i) That no construction method using a driven pile technique shall be
used;
(ii) Construction programme, including:
• an outline of the construction programme;
• confirmation of the proposed sequence of construction works;
• identification of any areas that will be publicly accessible
during construction.
(iii) Methods to remedy any disturbance resulting from works; and
(iv) Management of excavation stability for permanent and temporary
works.
(c) Site management, including details of:
(i) Site access;
49
(ii) Bunding or containment of fuels and lubricants to prevent the
discharge of contaminants;
(iii) Maintenance of machinery and plant to minimise the potential for
leakage of fuel or lubricants; and
(iv) Restrictions and methods necessary to maintain public health and
safety, including means for restricting and notifying the public of
any restrictions on public access to and along the riverbank.
(d) In addition to the above, the following management plans may be
provided under the umbrella of the overarching CEMP or as standalone
documents:
(i) Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) required under
Condition 64;
(ii) Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)
required under Condition 71;
(iii) Heritage Construction Management Plan (HCMP) required under
Condition 97;
(iv) Contaminated Site Management Plan (CSMP) required under
Condition 114;
(v) Tree Protection Management Plan (TPMP) required under
Condition 126.
62. In line with the requirements under Condition 9, the CEMP shall include a
record of the engagement with Mana Whenua including any feedback received
from Mana Whenua, and any subsequent responses provided to Mana
Whenua.
63. In line with the requirement under Condition 11, the CEMP, CTMP and CNVMP
must clearly document the comments and inputs received from the Neighbour
Liaison Group, along with a clear explanation of where any feedback has not
been incorporated, and the reasons why not.
50
Construction Traffic Management Plan
64. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of Construction
of each stage of the construction phasing, the Consent Holder shall prepare a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) relative to the stage of
construction being undertaken and submit it to the Council (Planning Guidance
Unit Manager (or nominee)) for certification that it gives effect to the objectives
of and complies with the requirements in Conditions 65 and 66.
65. The objectives of the CTMP are to:
(a) Ensure that all construction traffic activities remain within the limits and standards approved under the consent and set out the management procedures and methods to be implemented in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects arising from construction traffic activities;
(b) Provide for the safety of everyone at all times;
(c) Implement measures to raise the awareness of pedestrians and cyclists to any construction traffic activity on or adjacent to public thoroughfares, including the riverside path;
(d) Specific measures to provide for the safe movement of construction vehicles through high pedestrian demand areas and in the vicinity of site access points;
(e) Specify measures to reduce vehicle traffic and parking demand associated with construction staff;
(f) Provide a mechanism for addressing queries and responding to complaints; and
(g) Provide for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians to and from 238‐240 Victoria Street and all properties on Sapper Moore‐Jones Place.
66. The CTMP shall include (but not be limited to) the following matters:
(a) Details of the works, intended construction timetable (including
staging) and hours of operation;
(b) The traffic management measures that will be required to be
implemented, including the need for temporary road closures and/or
other restrictions on the affected road network;
(c) A mechanism and nominated stakeholder manager responsible for
receiving, addressing and monitoring queries and responding to
complaints in relation to the construction works;
51
(d) Specific construction site traffic management measures (for example
ensuring sufficient space is maintained within construction site(s) to
prevent vehicles queuing on the street (or other publicly accessible
spaces) to ensure that construction traffic does not affect the efficiency
and safety of other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and other users within
the vicinity of the works;
(e) Methods to manage pedestrian access and safety on Victoria Street,
Embassy Park, Sapper Moore‐Jones Place and the riverside path;
(f) Methods to provide for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians
to and from 238‐240 Victoria Street and all properties on Sapper Moore‐
Jones Place;
(g) Liaison with Council to manage temporary changes to on‐street
parking;
(h) Measures to manage vehicle traffic and reduce parking demands
associated with construction staff. Contractor parking is off‐site only
and shall not take place on Sapper Moore‐Jones Place;
(i) Confirmation of the typical number and type of heavy vehicle
movements throughout the day and their typical route to take to ensure
a safe environment for all road users, including existing residents and
pedestrians to ensure that the surrounding road network will continue
to operate in an efficient manner;
(j) Methods to control dust, debris on roads and silt laden runoff during
construction, such as the erection of silt fence, stabilised entranceways,
cut off drains and the connection of downpipes to the stormwater
system as necessary.
(k) A communication strategy to raise awareness to the public of the
constraints and options of alternative routes during construction.
67. All works within the road corridor shall be managed by a contractor operating
under a current CAR (Corridor Access Request), made through the
www.beforeudig.co.nz website) and appropriate traffic management. The
Corridor Access Request shall be approved by the Road Controlling Authority
prior to construction works commencing onsite.
68. All service relocation required to accommodate the upgraded vehicle crossing
shall be at the consent holder’s expense.
52
69. The footpath and berm shall be kept clear during construction, or, if not
practicable, may be temporarily closed along the site frontage. An application
for Temporary Use of the Road Corridor can be made through the
www.beforeudig.co.nz website.
70. On completion of construction work any damage within the road corridor shall
be repaired, and the kerb, berm and footpath reinstated to match the
surroundings or upgraded environment. The reinstatement work shall not be
carried out until all any work within the road corridor has been completed and
shall include the reinstatement of all trenches.
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
71. A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) (which can be
part of a larger construction management plan) shall be provided to Council
(Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer) at least twenty (20)
working days prior to Commencement of Construction for certification that the
CNVMP gives effect to the objectives and complies with the requirements in
Conditions 72 and 73.
72. The CNVMP shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person in
construction noise and vibration and shall confirm and include the following:
(a) The applicable construction noise and vibration limits (refer to
Conditions 74 and 76);
(b) Identification of likely affected properties (off‐site), which shall include
the residential apartments at 238 and 240 Victoria St Hamilton;
(c) Predicted noise and vibration levels at the locations of the likely
affected properties;
(d) General methods to mitigate and manage construction noise and
vibration to comply with the applicable noise limits;
(e) Identification of any construction activities (such as pile driving and
concrete pours) that may require specific mitigation measures to
comply with the applicable noise and vibration limits;
(f) Provision for sound level monitoring of construction activities that may
exceed the stated noise limits;
(g) A methodology for pro‐active monitoring of vibration levels in relation
to the residential apartments located at 238 and 240 Victoria St
Hamilton to ensure compliance with the stated vibration limits;
53
(h) The procedures to be followed when construction activities cannot
meet the noise and vibration standards in Conditions 74 and 76;
(i) Contact details of the person in charge of construction works;
(j) A complaint management procedure.
73. The objectives of the CNVMP are:
(a) Identify and adopt the Best Practicable Option for the management of
construction noise and vibration, including the effects of vibration on
the former Hamilton Hotel building and the remedy of any effects of
vibration on the condition of that building;
(b) Define the procedures to be followed when construction activities
cannot meet the noise and vibration standards in Condition 71 and 72.
(c) Inform the duration, frequency and timing of works to manage
disruption; and
(d) Require engagement with affected receivers and timely management
of complaints.
74. All construction work on the site, including demolition, earthworks, foundation
work, concrete pours and piling, shall be designed and conducted to ensure
that construction noise from the site at approximately 1‐m from the most
exposed façade of a building on any other site in a residential zone, or of a
building used for residential accommodation within the Central City Zone, does
not exceed the noise limits in the following table. If any sound level
measurements are recorded, they shall be measured and assessed in
accordance with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 'Acoustics ‐ Construction
Noise' by a suitably qualified and experienced person in construction noise –
Time period
Monday to Friday Saturdays Sundays and Public Holidays
Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA)
Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA)
Leq (dBA) Lmax (dBA)
06:30am to 07:30am
55 75 45 75 45 75
07:30am to 06:00pm
70 85 70 85 55 85
06:00pm to 08:00pm
65 80 45 75 45 75
08:00pm to 06:30am
45 75 45 75 45 75
54
Advice note:
The lower noise limits (shaded) mean that some construction work, particularly
in relation to any concrete pours, piling and earthworks, may not be able to take
place during the corresponding time frames, which includes all times on Sundays
and public holidays.
75. Notwithstanding the need to comply with condition 74 above, construction
works outside the hours of 7:30am – 6:00pm Monday to Saturday and including
Sundays and public holidays shall be limited to activities including painting,
plastering, finishing works and other similar activities. The intention being to
limit the construction activities to low noise generating activities during those
times. All contractor access to the site during those times shall be via Sapper
Moore‐Jones Place.
76. Construction vibration shall comply with the limits in Table 1 and Table 3 of DIN
4150‐3:1999 “Structural Vibration – Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures”.
77. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the certified
CNVMP
Settlement and Deformation Monitoring
78. Prior to Commencement of Construction, a condition survey of adjacent land
shall be undertaken. This shall comprise external visual observations and
inspections of adjacent public land, specifically Victoria Street, Sapper Moore‐
Jones Place, Embassy Park including of buried services within these public
places, and the retained portions of the former Hamilton Hotel. The condition
surveys shall include:
(a) A description of the type of foundations;
(b) A description of the existing levels of damage considered to be of an aesthetic or
superficial nature;
(c) A description of existing levels of damage considered to affect the serviceability of
the building / structure where visually apparent without recourse to intrusive or
destructive investigation;
(d) An assessment as to whether existing damage may or may not be associated with
actual structural damage and an assessment of the susceptibility of buildings /
structures to further movement and damage, to the extent predicted;
(e) Photographic evidence of existing observable damage;
(f) A review of the Alarm and Alert Levels identified in Condition 82 to confirm they are
appropriately set and confirmation that any ground settlement less than the Alarm
Level will not cause damage;
(g) An assessment of what proposed monitoring frequency is appropriate;
55
(h) An assessment of where and how many Deformation Monitoring Stations is
adequate and appropriate for the effective detection of change to building and
structure condition; and
(i) CCTV survey of buried services where possible.
79. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of Construction,
the Consent Holder shall prepare a Settlement and Deformation Monitoring
Plan (SDMP) and submit it to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager (or
nominee)) for certification that it gives effect to the objectives of and complies
with the requirements in Conditions 80 to 81.
80. The objective of the SDMP is to:
(a) Provide for the safety or people and structural integrity of property (specifically Victoria Street, Sapper Moore‐Jones Place, Embassy Park and the retained portions of the former Hamilton Hotel) at all times.
81. The SDMP shall include (but not be limited to) the following matters:
(a) Confirmation of the excavation approach and the design of any
temporary retaining walls proposed;
(b) The location and number of proposed monitoring points shall be shown
on plans together with the rationale for their number and location
based on the baseline information collected through the Pre‐
commencement Surveys required under condition 78;
(c) The frequency of monitoring shall be confirmed. Indicatively, it is
anticipated that monitoring will commence with weekly observations,
with possible reduction in frequency during the works if no settlements
or deformations are observed;
(d) All Alert and Alarm Level Triggers, including reasons if changes are
proposed, for example as a result of recommendations in the building
condition surveys or more specific tolerance levels for the former
Hamilton Hotel are established; and
(e) Details of contingency actions to be implemented if Alert or Alarm
Levels are exceeded.
56
Advice note:
1. The relevance of Condition 79 to the works will vary depending on the approach to
earthworks (i.e. temporary retaining wall versus battering, etc) and whether
groundwater is intercepted, and dewatering required. The information requirements
under Condition 81 provides the opportunity to clarify the construction approach and
set out appropriate monitoring procedures.
Alert and Alarm Levels
82. The activity shall not cause any settlement or movement greater than the Alarm Level thresholds specified in Schedule A below. Alert and Alarm Levels are triggered when the following Alert and Alarm Trigger Thresholds are exceeded:
Schedule A: Alarm and Alert Levels
Type of movement Trigger Thresholds
Alert/Action Alarm
a) Differential vertical settlement between any two Ground Surface Settlement Monitoring Stations
1:700 1:500
b) Total vertical settlement between the pre‐excavation baseline level and subsequent measurements at any Ground Surface Settlement Monitoring Station
5mm 10mm
c) Lateral deflection between the baseline level and subsequent measurements at any retaining wall during basement construction monitoring station
10mm 15mm
Notes: any settlement monitoring must be undertaken with an accuracy of no greater than +/‐ 2mm to.
Reporting procedure
83. In the event that Alert Levels are triggered, the Consent Holder shall notify the
Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee) within 24 hours.
Relevant monitoring stations shall be re‐monitored within this period to
confirm the accuracy of the data obtained. Once the movements have been
confirmed, construction shall be halted with immediate effects until a plan of
how to proceed has been agreed with the Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Manager (or nominee).
57
Post‐works Condition Surveys
84. Upon completion of the dewatering and basement construction, a visual
assessment of the Victoria Street, Sapper Moore‐Jones Place, Embassy Park
and the retained portions of the former Hamilton Hotel building shall be
undertaken, and CCTV surveys of buried services repeated.
Operational Noise
85. An acoustic design certificate, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced
person in building acoustics, shall be provided to Council (Planning Guidance
Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer) at or before the time of application for
building consent. The certificate shall show how the noise standards in
Condition 87 are able to be met in relation to noise from the auditorium,
rehearsal room, the foyer and mechanical plant and the smoke exhaust.
86. The consent holder shall provide an Operational Noise Management Plan for
certification by Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring
Officer) at least twenty (20) working days prior to the commencement of the
consented activity. The Plan shall outline the following:
(a) The applicable noise limits (refer to Condition 87);
(b) A description of the types of events and activities that are associated
with the consented activity and their location within the consented
activity (including the art gallery and the back‐of‐house delivery/service
area);
(c) Identification of potentially affected properties (off‐site), which shall
include the residential apartments at 238 and 240 Victoria St Hamilton;
(d) Mitigation measures that will be applied to ensure that noise emission
from all activities and events will comply with the applicable noise
limits;
(e) Contact details of key management personnel;
(f) A complaint management procedure.
87. The cumulative noise emission from all events and activities (excluding
construction noise) and mechanical plant shall not exceed the rating noise
levels in the following tables. Noise levels shall be measured in accordance with
NZS6801:2008 ‘Acoustics ‐ Measurement of Environmental Sound’ and
assessed in accordance with NZS6802:2008 ‘Acoustics ‐ Environmental Noise’
before comparison with these levels‐
(a) At any point within the boundary of any other site in a residential zone‐
58
Time of day
Noise level measured in LAeq (15‐min)
Noise level measured in LAFmax
0600 – 0700 hours 45dB 75dB
0700 – 2000 hours 50dB ‐
2000 – 2300 hours 45dB ‐
2300 – 0600 hours 40dB 75dB
(b) At any point 1 metre from the external facade of any building in the Central
City Zone (including those used for residential activity or for visitor
accommodation)‐
Time of day
Noise level measured in LAeq (15‐min)
Noise level measured in LAFmax
At all times (24‐hrs)
60dB
75dB 55dB @ 63Hz
50dB @ 125Hz
88. All events and activities associated with the consented activity shall be managed
in accordance with the certified Operational Noise Management Plan.
Conservation Plan
Purpose of the Conservation Plan:
The production of a Conservation Plan conventionally precedes the
determinations for change to a heritage item. In this case, the Conservation Plan
will continue to adhere to best practice principles in providing guidance, policies
and recommendations for the appropriate conservation and adaptive reuse of
the sections of the former Hamilton Hotel that are proposed to be retained and
its site. The Conservation Plan will include the following sections: Summary of
the history of the place, description of the historic heritage values of the place,
an inventory of fabric, features, fixtures and fittings associated with the place
(including its historic landscape), policies and recommendations. The
Conservation Plan should not be perceived in any way as a justification for a
predetermined approach to managing the historic heritage values of the former
Hamilton Hotel or the Waikato Regional Theatre project.
59
89. Prior to the Commencement of Construction, the Appointed Conservation
Architect shall prepare a Conservation Plan, based on the model developed by
JS Kerr, for the former Hamilton Hotel with particular emphasis on the sections
of the hotel that are to be retained. The Consent Holder shall submit this
separately to HNZPT for comments and submit the Conservation Plan to the
Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) in consultation with
Council's Heritage Advisor) for certification that it gives effect to the objectives
of and complies with the requirements in Condition 90.
90. The objective of the Conservation Plan is to develop clear policies to guide the
designers to ensure that the heritage values of the remaining heritage fabric
are protected. Policies shall be included that provide a methodology for
incorporating any seismic upgrading work and should also outline philosophies
for adapting the building for new uses, including the integration of new fabric.
91. The Conservation Plan shall be completed prior to the commencement of the
detailed design stage to ensure that it is in place to guide the designers and
engineers through the design phases of the project. The completed
Conservation Plan should be made available to all personnel working on the
site.
92. Once the Conservation Plan has been completed, the Appointed Conservation
Architect shall continue to consult with the consent holder’s design architect
and Engineers to ensure that the heritage values and fabric of the Hamilton
Hotel are appropriately managed through the design phase in consultation with
HNZPT.
93. Work to the remaining section of the Hamilton Hotel should also be guided by
the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter (revised 2010) with respect to preservation,
restoration and reconstruction and the Conservation Plan shall demonstrate
how this is proposed to be achieved.
Restoration Plan
94. Prior to the restoration works to the former Hamilton Hotel building, the
Appointed Conservation Architect shall prepare a Restoration Plan detailing
the proposed restoration of the remaining sections of the former Hamilton
Hotel. The Consent Holder shall submit this separately to HNZPT for comments
and submit the Restoration Plan to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Manager (or nominee)) in consultation with Council's Heritage Advisor) for
certification that it gives effect to the requirements in Condition 96. The
Restoration Plan shall be completed prior to work commencing on any part of
the site.
60
95. The Council (Team Leader Compliance Monitoring Planning Guidance Unit
Manager (or nominee) in consultation with Council's Heritage Advisor) shall be
advised of any design changes and given the opportunity to comment and
advise whether amendments to the resource consent are required.
96. The Restoration Plan shall include details of the work to be undertaken,
methodologies proposed, the name of the conservation architect overseeing
the work and timeframes to undertake and complete the works. The plan shall
include the following:
(a) Architectural drawings and a description of the work proposed to restore
the lower level of the Hamilton Hotel’s exterior façades facing Victoria
Street and extending around the corner into Sapper Moore‐Jones Place
to their 1923/29 forms or as agreed by Council’s heritage advisor. This
shall include a colour scheme taking into account the building’s original
colours as determined by paint scrapings.
(b) Architectural drawings and a description of the work proposed to remove
identified accretions that detract from the Hamilton Hotel’s heritage
value.
(c) A proposal to reuse any salvaged materials and fabric from the areas of
the Hamilton Hotel that are being demolished. The proposed locations
of material and fabric to be reused shall be shown on architectural
drawings to be prepared for the project. Material and fabric to be reused
shall include the following:
i. Original leadlight windows from the main stairwell and
potentially other steel window joinery.
ii. The complete central oak panelled staircase.
iii. Original fire surrounds.
iv. Remaining original doors and architraves.
v. Timber fixtures and fittings from the area known as the
Queen’s Suite on level 2 of the Hamilton Hotel, which shall be
retained as a group of items within the Hamilton Hotel.
(d) Architectural drawings and a description of the work proposed to expose
original fabric at the rear of the 1929 Hamilton Hotel.
61
(e) An inventory of original heritage fabric to remain in place and its location
on the architectural drawings. This shall include the original entry doors,
complete with hardware and any remnants of original shopfronts.
(f) Architectural details of junctions between heritage fabric and new
building work.
(g) A condition report, detailing all the defects and outlining remedial work
proposed to be undertaken on the Hamilton Hotel.
(h) Details of proposed structural upgrading work to the Hamilton Hotel
which shall be prepared in consultation with the Appointed Conservation
Architect and its impact on heritage fabric carefully considered.
(i) All mechanical plant and ventilation systems impacting on the Hamilton
Hotel shall be fully detailed in consultation with the Appointed
Conservation Architect to ensure their impact on heritage fabric is
minimised.
(j) Details of a proposed signage envelope for the frontage of the Hamilton
Hotel developed in consultation with the Appointed Conservation
Architect to ensure their impact on heritage fabric is minimised.
Heritage Construction Management Plan
97. A minimum of twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of
Construction, the Consent Holder’s contractor in association with the
Appointed Conservation Architect shall prepare a Heritage Construction
Management Plan (HCMP) and submit this separately to HNZPT for comments
and to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) in
consultation with the Council’s Heritage Advisor) for certification that it gives
effect to the objectives of and complies with the requirements in Conditions 98 and
99.
98. The objective of the HCMP is to guide the demolition and construction works in
relation to heritage, to ensure that the works are undertaken in accordance
with good practice conservation principles and methods, so as to mitigate or
remedy adverse effects on heritage values.
Advice note:
Measures to protect the heritage buildings against the effects of vibration from
site works and demolition are included as part of the Construction Noise and
Vibration Management Plan at conditions 71‐77.
62
99. The HCMP shall include but not be limited to:
(a) A statement of significance from the Conservation Plan of the recognised
historic heritage values of the place that have informed the proposed
construction management processes.
(b) Contract details for all stakeholders including the contractor and nominated
heritage specialist who will be overseeing all the heritage works on site.
(c) A construction schedule with approximate timing for each phase of
construction.
(d) A work plan for each construction activity, detailing demolition/construction
methods for each component of the Hamilton Hotel.
(e) A Heritage Protection Plan (HPP) outlining measures to be taken to protect
existing heritage fabric that is being retained in‐situ from damage during
construction.
(f) A detailed methodology for the removal of heritage fabric that is proposed
to be set aside for reuse. This will include items such as the timber portals in
the entry hall, the timber staircase, the timber fixtures and fittings in the
Queen's Suite, original timber doors and architraves, leadlight windows and
fire surrounds. The methodology shall include measures to ensure the safe
retention, transportation and storage of the heritage fabric.
(g) A methodology describing the proposed demolition and measures to be put
in place to ensure that areas of the building that are to be retained will be
protected from damage during demolition and construction activities.
(h) Details of any temporary propping of the former Hamilton Hotel that might
be required while demolition work is being carried out and any fixings that
might be required to the building fabric.
(i) With an underground car park adjacent to the former Hamilton Hotel being
proposed, details of how the ground beneath the hotel is to be retained and
details of any underpinning that might be required.
(j) Measures to be taken to ensure the retained areas of the former Hamilton
Hotel building is to be protected from water ingress and unauthorised access
during demolition and construction phases.
63
100. In the event that any changes to the approved consent drawings / documents
are required as a result of new information and / or site discovery, the HCMP
shall be updated to provide the following information and shall be provided to
Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer) for review:
(a) Plans and drawings outlining the details of the changes; and
(b) Supporting information that details whether the proposed changes will
result in any difference and / or increase in adverse effects on the
heritage values of the Hamilton Hotel.
Those changes shall only be implemented after all the information provided as
part of the updated HCMP has been reviewed by Council in accordance with the
process set out in Conditions 54 ‐ 58 as being within the scope of this resource
consent.
101. If accidental damage or reduced condition occurs to a historic heritage place,
feature or element as a result of works associated with the Project, the Consent
Holder or their appointed agent shall be responsible for undertaking
remediation to a standard at least equivalent to the condition noted in the pre‐
works visual condition survey required under Condition 47. The HCMP shall be
updated to detail the remedial works, shall include as a minimum the following
information, and shall be provided to Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Compliance Monitoring Officer) for review:
(a) Physical investigations;
(b) Further research;
(c) Specifications for any required conservation work to remediate the
damage or reduced condition of historic heritage fabric; and
(d) The outcome of consultation with the Council’s Heritage Specialist and
HNZPT.
Those changes shall only be implemented after all information provided as part
of the updated HCMP has been reviewed by Council in accordance with the
process set out in Conditions 54 ‐ 58 as being within the scope of this resource
consent.
102. A pre‐construction meeting shall be held between the Consent Holder’s
Contractor, the Appointed Conservation Architect and Council’s nominated
Heritage Specialist prior to the Commencement of Construction to ensure that
the pre‐construction measures required by the HCMP have been implemented
and that the correct heritage processes are understood and followed.
64
103. Prior to the commencement of any demolition activity, the Appointed
Conservation Architect shall be advised and shall oversee any work involving
heritage related work including demolition of the consented parts of the
Hamilton Hotel to ensure that the work is being carried out in accordance with
the resource consent conditions.
104. The Appointed Conservation Architect shall record and log the on‐going
compliance with the Built Heritage conditions of this consent. This log shall be
provided to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring
Officer in consultation with Council’s Heritage Specialist) at monthly intervals,
or upon request.
Contamination
105. Prior to any soil disturbance works commencing on or within the site, the
Consent Holder shall arrange a pre‐commencement meeting to discuss soil
contamination requirements. The objective of the meeting will be to ensure all
relevant parties are clear on the implementation of the human health‐related
controls. The matters for discussion will include (but not be limited to) and
confirm:
(a) The investigative approach to characterising the unknown nature of the
soil being disturbed specific to land where HAILs are alleged to have been
undertaken.
(b) The approach to site management including identifying unknown hazards
and implementing mitigation methods specific to human health‐related
requirements.
(c) The approach to meeting compliance monitoring requirements with
regard to timing, staging, notification and communication.
(d) In attendance must be:
a. The Suitably Qualified and Experienced Practitioner (SQEP)
nominated to oversee the works/address soil contamination matters
b. Council’s Contaminated Land Officer and Compliance Monitoring
Officer
c. All contractors and sub‐contractors’ supervisory staff who are
carrying out any works associated with human health‐related
requirements.
65
106. Prior to the commencement of any soil disturbance works occurring, a Detailed
Site Investigation (DSI) shall be done for the piece(s) of land where HAIL
activities are alleged to have been undertaken, as identified in the Preliminary
Contaminated Site Investigation for 170 Victoria St, Hamilton Report prepared
by Lysaght Consulting Ltd, (dated August 2018), and as explained in Section 58
of the Waikato Regional Theatre Section 92 Request for Information Response
dated 6 June 2019.
107. The DSI shall be done and reported on by a Suitably Qualified and Experienced
Practitioner (SQEP) in accordance with the RMA (National Environmental
Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human
Health) (NESCS) Regulations 2011, in terms of regulation 3.
108. Prior to the commencement of any soil disturbance works occurring, a copy of
the DSI report must be provided to Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with Council Environmental
Health Manager) for certification
109. The DSI shall contain sufficient and appropriate information to enable suitable
action by regulators and compliance monitoring officers.
110. The report shall include all evidence the SQEP has relied upon to form their
concluding opinions and recommendations. The discretion exercised by the
SQEP must be sufficiently detailed, and any departure from the framework
provided in MfE’s CLMGs must be appropriately justified.
111. The DSI investigative objectives and subsequent sampling design strategy shall
be capable of determining if any piece of land is impacted in such a way that
poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment (on‐site or off‐
site) given the intended use, the associated soil disturbance and any on‐site
reuse and off‐site disposal.
112. The DSI shall confirm the suitability of the land for the intended land use, and
the suitability of the soil for on‐site re‐use or off‐site disposal by clearly
demonstrating compliance with the applicable NESCS Soil Contaminant
Standards for Health and the appropriate disposal facility acceptance criteria.
66
113. In the event that the investigation results indicate contaminants of concern
exceed the applicable NESCS standards, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) shall be
developed that includes remedial and management works that are appropriate
to mitigating the risk posed by the contaminants. The RAP shall specify the
proposed process in sufficient detail to show how it can be successful and must
specify the sampling necessary to validate that the resultant soil is safe for the
intended use. The appropriateness of the proposed methodology will be
determined by the degree of certainty provided by the SQEP that the actions
undertaken will eliminate or sufficiently reduce the hazard to an acceptable
level. A copy of the RAP shall be provided to Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with Council’s Environmental
Health Manager) for certification prior to any remedial works being done.
114. In the event that the DSI determines site‐specific soil management is required
a Contaminated Site Management Plan (CSMP) shall be prepared and the
content must serve as a framework for managing soil disturbance on a piece(s)
of land by identifying hazards and recommending mitigation methods relevant
to actual site conditions. The CSMP shall include the necessary designs, actions,
procedures and controls that restrict and prevents exposure and avoid human
health implications on‐site and off‐site discharges. The CSMP shall include:
(a) Appropriate transport and disposal options to avoid human health and
environmental exposure from off‐site removal of soil;
(b) appropriate contingency measures for any previously unidentified
contamination being discovered; and
(c) an acceptable method for works completion reporting. Any alternative
methods or measures must be proven to be consistent with the objective
of the approved CSMP prior to their implementation.
The adequacy of the CSMP shall be determined by the inclusion of industry
accepted best practice management controls in accordance with (but not limited
to) Soil and Erosion Control: guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities, Waikato
Regional Council (2009), Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Dust,
Ministry for the Environment (2016), Guidelines for Assessment and Managing
Asbestos in Soil, BRANZ (2017). A copy of the CSMP shall be provided to Council
(Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with
Council’s Environmental Health Manager) for certification acceptance that it has
been prepared in accordance with aforementioned guidelines prior to any soil
disturbance occurring on land that requires human health‐related controls.
67
115. The relevant human health‐related controls outlined in the CSMP must be
implemented under supervision of the SQEP or suitable persons nominated by
the SQEP for the duration of the soil disturbance works. Any alternative
management methods or measures must be notified to Council and must be
proven to be consistent with the objective of the CSMP prior to their
implementation. The alterations must be consistent with the human health
risk‐based approach of the CSMP to ensure the same level of protection is
afforded to site workers, and future site users.
116. In the event that any previously unidentified contamination (including but not
limited to asbestos) is discovered in any exposed or excavated soil, works are
to cease immediately, and Council is to be notified of the discovery. The SQEP
is to assess the risk and determine what actions are appropriate for reducing
the potential risk to site workers, future site users and the environment given
the extent of the discovery. The details of the discovery and the action taken
are to be reported either in the SVR or the works completion reporting.
Advice notes relating to contamination:
b) In terms of piece(s) of land ‐ the PSI report and S42A report have indicated that
the likely location of the alleged HAIL (A.5 Dry Cleaner) is within the main building
of the former Hamilton Hotel, but that soils across the wider site may have been
impacted by fires destroying the previous two hotel buildings. Also, that post
demolition and removal of buildings/concrete hardstand, inspection and soil
sampling needs to be undertaken; that assessment, inspection and soil sampling
may be required at any other stages of the development when previously
inaccessible soils (suspected of being impacted/pieces of land) are exposed.
c) In terms of in accordance with NESCS regulation 3 DSI (a) – verification of SQEP
credibility will be determined by the certifier being a Contaminated Land
Specialist, who has relevant capabilities that are supported by a professional
profile, or who ultimately is a certified practitioner registered with EIANZ CEnvP
or CEnvP‐SC scheme. This information must be submitted with any reporting
done under the NESCS.
d) In terms of in accordance with NESC regulation 3 DSI (b) & (c) ‐ any investigation,
remediation, validation and soil management works must be done and reported
on in accordance with current editions of the Ministry for the Environment
Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 5 – Site Investigation and
Analysis of Soils, No.1 ‐ Reporting on Contaminated Sites in New Zealand, and
The Methodology for Deriving Standards for Contaminants in Soil to protect
Human Health (2011).
68
e) In terms of “in accordance” with NESC regulation 3 HAIL ‐ will be determined by
the SQEP demonstrating the approach adopted meets the requirements of the
relevant regulations and guidance that governs the assessment, management
and remediation of land affected by hazardous substances typically associated
with the specific activities and industries listed in the current edition of the
Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), Wellington, Ministry for the
Environment (MfE).
f) In terms of NESCS regulations ‐ “suitability” of any land will be determined by the
SQEP adopting the appropriate approach to investigation, remediation and
validation as outlined in the relevant MfE’s Guidelines incorporated by reference
in the NESCS. A best practice approach will also include meeting any specific
requirements of other relevant regulations and guidance that governs the
assessment, management and remediation of other contaminants of concern,
and guidance documents that provide statements of good practice (be that they
have or not have the status of law but that sit within/align with the contaminated
land framework).
g) Verification of “in accordance” will be determined by the SQEP demonstrating
the investigative approach adopted adequately meets the requirements of the
relevant regulations and guidance that governs the assessment, management
and remediation of land affected by hazardous substances typically associated
with the specific activities and industries listed in the current edition of the
Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), Wellington, Ministry for the
Environment (MfE).
h) The adequacy of the investigation(s) will be determined by the report(s)
content(s) clearly demonstrating best practice has been applied to the
investigation and reporting process. And by an investigative approach involving
a robust risk‐based assessment that includes a sufficient weight of evidence
clearly capable of demonstrating the appropriateness of the conclusions.
i) The appropriateness of a proposed RAP methodology will be determined by the
degree of certainty provided by the SQEP that the actions undertaken will
eliminate or sufficiently reduce the hazard to an acceptable level.
j) The adequacy of an SVR will be determined by the weight of evidence
documenting the effectiveness of the remediation against the remedial goals set.
69
k) The adequacy of a CSMP will be determined by the inclusion of industry accepted
best practice management controls in accordance with (but not limited to) Soil
and Erosion Control: guidelines for Soil Disturbing Activities, Waikato Regional
Council (2009), Good Practice Guide for Assessing and Managing Dust, Ministry
for the Environment (2016), Guidelines for Assessment and Managing Asbestos
in Soil, BRANZ (2017).
l) The off‐site disposal of any potentially contaminated soil may qualify as a
discharge of contaminants under the Waikato Regional Plan in which case
Waikato Regional Council would need to be contacted.
117. The implementation of the accepted RAP methodology shall be supervised by
the SQEP, or suitable persons nominated by the SQEP, to ensure contractors
and surrounding population and environments are not exposed to
contaminants, and to ensure that the human health risk is eliminated or
sufficiently reduced to acceptable levels on completion. The Consent Holder
shall notify the Council (Team Leader Compliance Monitoring in consultation
with Council’s Environmental Health Manager) of any proposed variations to
the accepted RAP and any alternative methods must be proven to be consistent
with the appropriate remediation standard prior to their implementation.
118. After completing any remedial activities one site, site validation shall be
undertaken to demonstrate the approved remediation targets have been
achieved. A Site Validation Report (SVR) shall be prepared that adequately
demonstrates no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment
remains on any piece(s) of land at the completion of the remedial works. The
SVR shall include confirmation that all the consenting requirements have been
met, and compliance approved before further soil disturbance works can
commence. The adequacy of the SVR will be determined by the weight of
evidence documenting the effectiveness of the remediation against the
remedial goals set. A copy of the SVR shall be provided to Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with Council’s
Environmental Health Manager) for certification as soon as practicable after
remedial validation is completed.
70
119. The relevant human health‐related controls outlined in the CSMP shall be
implemented under supervision of the SQEP or suitable persons nominated by
the SQEP for the duration of the soil disturbance works. Any alternative
management methods or measures shall be notified to Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with Council’s
Environmental Health Manager) for certification that they are consistent with
the objective of the CSMP prior to their implementation. The alterations shall
be consistent with the human health risk‐based approach of the CSMP to
ensure the same level of protection is afforded to site workers, and future site
users.
120. In the event that any previously unidentified contamination (including but not
limited to asbestos) is discovered in any exposed or excavated soil, works are
to cease immediately, and Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance
Monitoring Officer) shall be notified of the discovery. The SQEP shall assess the
risk and determine what actions are appropriate for reducing the potential risk
to site workers, future site users and the environment given the extent of the
discovery. The details of the discovery and the action taken shall be reported
either in the SVR required under Condition 118 or the works completion
reporting required under Condition 122.
121. Any soil identified as requiring removal from the site by the SQEP shall be
removed under controlled conditions to a licensed waste facility or landfill for
disposal in accordance with the requirements of the disposal site and the
relevant authority. Receipts of transport and disposal shall be included in the
SVR required under Condition 118 or the Works Completion Reporting required
under Condition 122.
122. The Consent Holder shall provide its Works Completion reporting to Council
(Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer) within two months of
soil disturbance works being completed to confirm that the methods outlined
in the CSMP were enforced for the period of the soil disturbance works, and
that the measures were successful in ensuring the potential risks were
adequately managed.
Tree Protection Methodology
General
123. The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist
(Appointed Arborist) to supervise all works in the vicinity of the scheduled
significant trees located on the site. The Appointed Arborist must be
experienced in implementing tree protection methodologies during
construction activities.
71
124. It shall be the responsibility of the Consent Holder to ensure that all persons
engaged or otherwise to work on the site are made aware of the conditions of
consent and tree protection methodologies, and that those conditions are
adhered to at all times.
Removal of trees
125. The three scheduled significant trees to be removed from the site are identified
as Trees 16.2 (Norfolk Pine), 16.4 (Southern Magnolia) and 16.5 (Southern
Magnolia) on the Tree Location Plan included as Annexure B to these
conditions. The removal of the three trees shall be undertaken by or under the
supervision of the Appointed Arborist, who shall ensure that the work is
undertaken in a manner that preserves the health and well‐being of the two
scheduled trees being retained (as defined in Condition 128 below).
Protection of trees during construction
126. A minimum of twenty (20) working days prior to the Commencement of
Construction, the Consent Holder shall prepare a Tree Protection Management
Plan (TPMP) for the ‘construction phase’ and submit it to the Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) in consultation with Council’s Arborist)
for certification that it gives effect to the objective of and complies with the
requirements in Conditions 128(a) and 129.
127. Prior to occupation of the Waikato Regional Theatre, the Consent Holder shall
submit an updated TPMP detailing the tree management measures to be
implemented on an ongoing basis to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with Council’s Arborist) for
certification that it gives effect to the objective of and complies with the
requirements of Conditions 128(b) and 129.
128. The objectives of the TPMP are:
(a) to ensure the protection of the two scheduled significant trees being retained
on the site (the Retained Trees), being the Tree 16.1 (Norfolk Pine) and Tree
16.3 (Bunya Pine) as identified in the Tree Location Plan included as
Annexure B to these conditions, for the duration of the construction activities
(including during the removal of the three trees identified under Condition
125); and
(b) to provide for the ongoing health and well‐being of the Retained Trees
required under this condition and the Replacement Trees required under
Condition 130, and to ensure public safety risks are proactively managed.
72
129. The TPMP shall include (but not be limited to) the following:
Construction phase
(a) That the Appointed Arborist shall supervise the physical delineation of
the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) on the ground around the Retained Trees.
No work shall take place within the TPZ unless otherwise agreed to by the
Appointed Arborist;
(b) That as soon as practicable and prior to Commencement of Construction,
soil testing shall be undertaken with the intention to analyse and amend
any nutrient and / or microorganism deficiencies;
(c) Details of the bespoke irrigation system that is to be installed within the
root zone of the Retained Trees. The system shall utilise rain fall, which
will be distributed evenly to the trees’ root zones, and will also provide
for irrigation of reticulated mains water for use during extended dry
periods;
(d) That as soon as practicable and prior to Commencement of Construction,
a suitable protective fence shall be erected not closer to the Retained
Trees than the edge of the TPZ. The location and structure type shall be
at the discretion of the Appointed Arborist; however, it is expected that
at a minimum the fence will be robust and at least 1.8m in height. No
material is to be stored, emptied or disposed of within the TPZ, and no
vehicle or machinery may enter the TPZ unless otherwise agreed to by
the Appointed Arborist;
(e) That as soon as practicable and prior to the Commencement of
Construction, an 80‐150mm layer of blended high‐fungal compost and
aged mulch be installed within the TPZ;
(f) That any cutting of existing concrete or asphalt shall be undertaken in a
manner that avoids ‘overcutting’, that being any more than the thickness
of the medium being cut. This will mitigate inadvertent severance of
roots that may be growing adjacent to this medium. Once cut, the
removal of the medium shall be undertaken by hand where possible. If a
machine excavator is to be used, then the bucket shall only remove the
medium, which will expose the substrate;
(g) Relating to excavations for the Theatre:
73
(i) That the initial excavations of the substrate shall be undertaken
along the delineated edge of the Theatre’s footprint and shall be
undertaken using either an airspade, Hydrovac or by hand‐ held tools
to a depth of 1m below ground level. A machine excavator can be
utilised to remove any obstructions that cannot otherwise be
removed by hand; and
(ii) That roots uncovered within the Theatre’s footprint during any part
of the process are to be documented and severed at the edge of the
excavations.
(h) Relating to excavations for Piles:
(i) That the initial excavations of the pile holes will be carried out using
either an airspade, Hydrovac or by hand‐ held tools to a depth of
600mm below ground level. A machine excavator can be utilised to
remove any obstructions that cannot otherwise be removed by
hand; and
(ii) Roots uncovered that measure 35mm in diameter or greater are to
be retained and the pile hole backfilled. The pile hole will then be
relocated. Roots measuring less the 35mm in diameter can be
removed to the edge of the pile hole only where the Appointed
Arborist is confident that the loss of the root won’t adversely affect
the health of the tree.
(i) Roots that are to be severed shall be cut with a clean, sharp hand saw or
loppers by, or under the supervision of, the Appointed Arborist;
(j) All exposed roots that are being retained shall be covered with a suitable
protective material (such as Hessian, or a wool mulch) in order to protect
them from drying and / or mechanical damage. The protective material
shall be in place until such time as the area can be backfilled with sop soil
or the final medium. The wrapping or covering of any roots shall be
undertaken by or under the supervision of the Appointed Arborist;
(k) The health of the Retained Trees shall be monitored by the Appointed
Arborist regularly throughout the construction phase and shall identify
any necessary amendments to the TPMP for implementation (subject to
the process set out in Conditions 54 ‐ 58).
Ongoing management of the Retained Trees
74
(l) Post‐works monitoring of the health of the Retained Trees and
Replacement Trees shall be undertaken by the Appointed Arborist. The
first monitoring event shall be six months following the completion of the
works, with a second monitoring event eight months’ later to allow for
any potential seasonal variations. Annual monitoring will be undertaken
for a further 36 months following the second monitoring event. Further
mitigation measures and monitoring requirements shall be outlined at
each monitoring event by the Appointed Arborist (e.g. compost tea
application, pruning or soil testing and amendments), and a record of the
monitoring of the Retained Trees maintained to establish a documented
history of the trees;
(m) The Retained Trees are known for high leaf and debris drop. It is likely
that this will need to be removed from the Theatre deck on a daily basis.
All debris should be spread on top of the trees’ root zones and left to
decompose as a source of nutrients to the trees;
(n) The Retained Trees shall be monitored on an annual basis for tree health
and public safety. Cone observation will allow identification of cones that
need to be removed prior to abscission. The removal of cones will need
to be undertaken under the supervision of a suitable arboricultural
specialist in a careful manner that avoids damage to structures. Soil
moisture levels and soil tests shall be undertaken annually to identify any
deficiencies and amelioration measures to be employed.
Advice note:
a) It is generally accepted that Norfolk Island Pine trees produce ‘mast
years’ where a large number of cones are developed. This can often lead
to branch failure due to the extra weight. Cones produced by Bunya Pines
can be as large as footballs and can weight in excess of 10kg. Cones from
both trees can abscise intact.
b) Cone abscission in the Bunya Pine and Norfolk Pine trees to be retained
has been recognised. Maintenance measures should be included within
the Tree Maintenance Plan to minimise risk to people and property. The
abscission of cones is not a reasonable reason for the removal of the trees
(o) The level of mulch and compost located beneath the trees’ canopies
(Retained and Replacement Trees) shall be inspected regularly. If the
levels are below 80mm then a mix of aged mulch and compost shall be
added. The compost is to be correctly sourced to have high fungal
content suitable for large trees.
75
Trees
130. The Consent Holder shall plant not fewer than three (3) large grade specimen
trees (80‐160 litre trees) (the Replacement Trees) to replace those being
removed under Condition 125. The Replacement Trees shall be planted in
positions that allow their full development, with the final species, size and
position to be in accordance with Landscape Plan certified under Condition 14.
131. The Replacement Trees required under Condition 130 will be maintained in
accordance with the TPMP certified under Condition 126 for at least 36
months.
Archaeology
132. Subject to the express requirements of any Archaeological Authority granted
under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, where, during
earthworks being undertaken in association with this consent, any
archaeological feature, artefact or human remains are discovered or are
suspected to have been discovered, the following protocol shall be followed:
(a) All work on the site shall cease immediately. The contractor / works
supervisor will shut down all equipment and activity;
(b) The area shall be secured, and the Consent Holder or proponent and
Council must be advised of the discovery;
(c) Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga shall be notified by the Consent
Holder or proponent so that the appropriate consent procedure can be
initiated; and
(d) The Consent Holder or proponent shall consult with a representative of
the appropriate iwi to determine what further actions are appropriate to
safeguard the site of its contents.
In the case where human remains have accidentally been discovered or are
suspected to have been discovered, the following protocols shall also be
followed:
(a) The area shall be immediately secured by the contractor in a way which
ensures human remains are not further disturbed. The Consent Holder or
proponent shall be advised of the steps taken;
76
(b) The New Zealand Police shall be notified of the suspected human remains
as soon as practicably possible after the remains have been discovered.
The Consent Holder or proponent shall notify the appropriate iwi,
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Hamilton City Council within
12 hours of the suspected human remains being discovered, or otherwise
as soon as practicably possible; and
(c) Excavation of the site shall not resume until the New Zealand Policy,
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the relevant iwi have each
given the necessary approvals for excavation to proceed.
Management of Construction Works
133. All construction works shall be managed to ensure that no debris, soil, silt,
sediment or sediment laden water is discharged beyond the site to any land,
stormwater drainage systems, watercourses and/or receiving waters. In the
event that a discharge occurs, the works shall cease immediately, and the
discharge shall be mitigated and/or rectified to the satisfaction of Council
(Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer).
134. The operational effectiveness and efficiency of all erosion and sediment control
measures specifically required to achieve Condition 133 shall be maintained
throughout each stage of earthworks activity, or until the site is permanently
stabilised against erosion. A record of any maintenance work shall be kept and
be supplied to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring
Officer) on request.
135. All construction works shall be managed to ensure that they do not lead to any
uncontrolled instability or collapse either affecting the site or adversely
affecting any neighbouring properties. In the event that such collapse or
instability does occur, it must immediately be rectified.
136. Construction works shall be conducted in such a manner which will not create
a dust nuisance. A dust nuisance will occur if:
(a) There is visible evidence of suspended solids in the air beyond the site
boundary; and/or
(b) There is visible evidence of suspended solids traceable from a dust source
settling on the ground, building or structure of a neighbouring site or water.
Advice note:
Refer to Waikato Regional Council’s “Erosion & Sediment Control, Guidelines for
Soil Disturbing Activities” which can be found at
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz
77
137. Within 10 working days following the completion or abandonment of
earthworks on the subject site all areas of bare earth shall be permanently
stabilised against erosion to the satisfaction of Council (Planning Guidance Unit
Compliance Monitoring).
Built heritage
138. A Built Heritage Monitoring Report shall be prepared to document changes or
conservation works to any built heritage fabric of the Hamilton Hotel building
affected by the Project. This shall be provided to the Council (Planning
Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer in consultation with Council’s
Heritage Specialist) for the purpose of updating its Cultural Heritage Inventory,
and to HNZPT to update its list entry information. This shall include (but is not
limited to):
(a) A log required by Condition 26 and certification that all works have been
completed in accordance with the requirements of this resource consent.
(b) Documentation recording changes or conservation works that have
occurred to any built heritage fabric of the Hamilton Hotel building
affected by the project. This will include areas that have been
demolished, salvaged fabric and items that have been repositioned
and/or repurposed and fabric that has been retained in place.
(c) A photographic record with supporting drawings and notes sufficient to
provide context.
The Built Heritage Monitoring Report shall be provided to the Council and HNZPT
within 12 months of completion of the construction works associated with the
Project.
139. The Appointed Conservation Architect and Appointed Archaeologist shall, in
consultation with HNZPT and Council’s Heritage Specialist, undertake a
programme of both integrated and story board interpretation to be displayed
in the new building and Hamilton Hotel as a visual and written record of the
development of the place (both the site and its buildings) over time. This shall
be completed and installed within 12 months of the completion of the
construction works associated with the Project.
Final Heritage Report
78
140. At completion of the construction work, the Consent Holder shall submit a
report to Council (Planning Guidance Unit Compliance Monitoring Officer in
consultation with Council’s Heritage Specialist) that includes the log required
by Condition 26, and certification that all works have been completed in
accordance with the requirements of this resource consent. This report shall
be prepared by the Appointed Conservation Architect and shall be submitted
no later than three (3) months after the completion of the construction work.
Operational traffic management
141. At least twenty (20) working days prior to the operation of the Waikato
Regional Theatre, the Consent Holder shall prepare an Operational Traffic
Management Plan (OTMP) and submit it to the Council (Manager, City
Transportation Unit (or nominee) for certification that it gives effect to the
objective of and complies with the requirements in Conditions 142 and 143.
142. The objective of the OTMP is to manage the traffic generated by the operation
of the Waikato Regional Theatre as well as public transport movements
(walking, cycling, vehicle) during the operation of the Theatre in a manner that
prioritises the safety of all road users.
143. The OTMP shall include (but not be limited to) the following:
(a) Semi‐trailer truck traffic management
(i) At least 24‐hours in advance of the scheduled semi‐trailer truck
arrival times, notification signs shall be placed on the existing
parking signs on the northern side of Sapper Moore‐Jones Place
notifying users that the parking will be unavailable for a specified
duration;
(ii) Where shows requiring semi‐trailer trucks are scheduled to be for
one or two days in duration, the duration of the parking ban shall
be from one hour prior to the anticipated arrival of the semi‐trailer
truck to one hour after the anticipated departure of the semi‐trailer
truck. Allowing parking in between the arrival and departure may
create issues;
(iii) The temporary no parking signs shall be removed immediately
following the departure of the semi‐trailer truck;
(iv) When semi‐trailer trucks are arriving / departing, there shall be no
less than two flagmen (one in front of the truck, one behind it) on
foot to guide, direct, or halt any general traffic in the area;
79
(v) When a temporary barrier is required to fence off parked trucks;
and
(b) Temporary Theatre drop‐off / pick‐up parking
Parking requirement
(i) For a show reaching at least 50% theatre capacity (based on
anticipated attendance at a point two days prior to the show),
three temporary drop‐off / pick‐up parking spaces shall be
provided in the approximate location identified within the
Indicative Operational Parking Plan included at Annexure C to
these conditions (actual layout subject to Council’s certification
under Condition 141);
(ii) For a show reaching at least 75% theatre capacity (based on
anticipated attendance at a point two days prior to the show), six
temporary drop‐off / pick‐up parking spaces shall be provided in
the approximate location identified within the Indicative
Operational Parking Plan included at Annexure C to these
conditions (actual layout subject to Council’s certification under
Condition 141).
Implementation
(iii) Up to 48 hours prior to a show, the anticipated attendance of a
scheduled performance is estimated, and the appropriate
temporary drop‐off / pick‐up scenario is selected;
(iv) At least 24 hours prior to the scheduled start time for a
performance, signs shall be placed on existing parking signs
located on the river‐side of Victoria Street between its
intersection with Sapper Moore‐Jones Place and Collingwood
Street notifying users that the parking will be unavailable for a
specified duration. The car parks shall be made unavailable from
at least 2 hours prior to the start of the performance (to enable
any last vehicles to leave and / or any towing to occur) until 1 hour
after the anticipated end of the performance;
(v) At the start time specified on the notification signs, the
notification signs shall be removed, and the temporary drop‐off /
pick‐up signs shall be installed. The existing parking signs shall
remain covered during this time;
80
(vi) For the duration of the temporary activity, traffic management
staff shall be stationed in the area to manage the flow, and usher
drivers along after they have unloaded passengers. For 50%+
capacity show scenario, it is suggested that only one such staff is
required, and two staff shall be provided for the 50%+ capacity
show scenario; and
(vii) At the end time for the temporary parking restriction, the
temporary signs shall be removed, and normal parking
restrictions reinstated.
(c) Post‐show pedestrian management
(i) The following measures shall be implemented for the first show
at the Theatre. The need for subsequent shows to be managed in
this manner will be assessed based upon an evaluation of shows
over time (not fewer than 10 shows), with an indicative trigger for
subsequent management being a 75%+ capacity crowd.
On the day of a show, temporary T2A or T2B “Hazard” signs
with suitable “Event” or “Pedestrians” supplementary signs
shall be installed on Victoria Street in advance of the Theatre
site to alert drivers to the new hazard
At the end of a show, traffic management staff shall be
located at the pedestrian crossing opposite the Theatre to
manage the flow of pedestrians and traffic in this area. This
could include active stop / go management.
144. The Consent Holder shall undertake a review of the OTMP after the first 6
months of operation to determine whether the objective set out at Condition
142 is being achieved in practice and shall submit a copy of the review to the
Council (Team Leader Compliance Monitoring). If it is determined that any
operational improvements or amendments need to be implemented, the
OTMP shall be amended in accordance with the processes set out Conditions
54 ‐ 58.
81
Travel Demand Management Plan
145. At least 20 working days prior to the operation of the Waikato Regional
Theatre, a Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) shall be submitted by the
Consent Holder to Council (Manager, City Transportation Unit (or nominee) for
certification. The objective of the TDMP is ensure travel‐related effects during
theatre events, general loading activities and hotel operation are appropriately
avoided, remedied or mitigated.
146. The TDMP shall describe proposed methods and requirements necessary to
achieve the objective of the TDMP and include (but not be limited to) the
following:
(a) Information about walking, cycling, bus routes, nearby parking locations,
cycle parking locations and drop‐off areas;
(b) Information on the preferred bus/coach parking areas that avoids the use of
Victoria Street (immediately outside the theatre) and Sapper Moore‐Jones
Place;
(c) How parking locations will be communicated to ticket purchasers. This could
be via a link to the website sent by email, or an app; and
(d) How bus/coach parking locations will be communicated to the relevant
operators.
147. The TDMP shall be made publicly available by the Consent Holder on the
theatre website (or similar).
148. The TDMP shall be updated at least annually by the Consent Holder.
Other Council Approvals
149. Prior to Commencement of Construction, the Consent Holder shall provide
evidence to the Council (Planning Guidance Unit Manager (or nominee)) of the
necessary Council approvals under the Local Government Act 2002 for the
required changes to the on‐street parking adjacent to the subject site in order
to give effect to the requirements of the OTMP as set out in Conditions 141‐
144.
General Advice notes
1. Any reference to number of days within this decision refers to working days as
defined in s2 of the RMA.
82
2. The consent holder is responsible for obtaining all other necessary consents,
permits, and licences, including those under the Building Act 2004, and the
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. This consent does not remove the
need to comply with all other applicable Acts (including the Property Law Act 2007
and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015), regulations, relevant Bylaws, and
rules of law. This consent does not constitute building consent approval.
The reasons for this decision are detailed in the preceding discussion but can be summarised as
follows:
1. The various objectives and policies of the District Plan which are relevant to the
assessment of the proposal have been considered and subject to the imposition of
conditions of consent it is considered that overall the proposal is not contrary to
these objectives and policies.
2. That the effects of the proposal can be adequately mitigated, remedied or avoided
through consent conditions, although acknowledging that the effects in respect of
heritage values through demolition of part of the former Hamilton Hotel, and
removal of 3 scheduled trees are greater than minor but acceptable when exercising
an overall judgment.
3. That the proposal is generally consistent with the relevant planning instruments that I am
required to have regard to as set out in section 104 of the RMA.
4. That the proposal will provide for a theatre complex to cater for the social and cultural
well‐being of the Hamilton and wider regional community and will contribute to the
rejuvenation and revitalization of the Hamilton CBD.
5. That the proposal contributes to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.
William Wasley
Commissioner
Date: 2 December 2019
83
ANNEXURE A
Approved drawing and document set (refer Condition 6)
Application for Resource Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects, Tattico, June 2019
Supporting documents: o A. Certificates of Title o B. Architectural Plans
Waikato Regional Theatre Resource Consent Report, Jasmax, October 2018
Drawings
RC‐000 Cover Sheet, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐010 Location Plan, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐011 Site Plan – Existing, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐012 Demolition Plan, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐013 Site Plan – Proposed, Rev F (11/06/19)
RC‐014 Site Plan ‐ Area's, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐050 GFA ‐ Area Plans, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐051 GFA ‐ Area Plans, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐100 Floor Plan ‐ Level ‐2 (Sub‐stage), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐101 Floor Plan ‐ Level ‐1 (Stalls), Rev F (11/06/19)
RC‐102 Floor Plan ‐ Level 1 (Circle), Rev F (11/06/19)
RC‐103 Floor Plan ‐ Level 2 (Balcony), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐104 Floor Plan ‐ Level 3 (Terrace), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐105 Floor Plan ‐ Level 4 (Bridge), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐106 Floor Plan ‐ Level 5 (Auditorium Roof), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐107 Floor Plan ‐ Level 8 (Fly Tower Roof), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐111 Sapper Moore‐Jones Place Plan, Rev A (28/11/18)
RC‐201 Elevation ‐ Victoria Street (Southwest), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐202 Elevation ‐ Embassy Plaza (Northwest), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐203 Elevation ‐ Waikato River (Northeast), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐204 Elevation ‐ Sapper Moore‐Jones Place (Southeast), Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐205 Elevation ‐ Waikato River (Northeast) ‐ No Screen, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐206 Elevation ‐ Sapper Moore‐Jones Place (Southeast) ‐ No Screen, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐305 Section ‐ Longitudinal ‐ through Auditorium, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐306 Section ‐ Longitudinal ‐ through Courtyard and Theatre F.O.H., Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐307 Section ‐ Longitudinal ‐ through Car Entry and Atrium, Rev E (13/10/18)
RC‐308 Section ‐Transverse ‐ through Victoria Street, Rev E (13/10/18)
o C. Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, Jasmax, October 2018 o D. Heritage Impact Assessment, Archifact Ltd, November 2018 o E. Archaeological Assessment, Clough & Associates Ltd, October 2018 o F. Assessment of Maori Values o G. Integrated Traffic Assessment, Flow Transportation Specialists, November
2018 o H. Civil Infrastructure Report, Holmes Consulting, October 2018
Drawings
C01‐02‐E existing conditions and demolition plan – Rev 1
C02‐01‐E enabling earthworks contour‐ grading plan and levels – Rev 1
C03‐01‐E enabling cut fill plan and volumes – Rev 1
C05‐01‐E enabling earthworks sections A‐B – Rev 1 o I. Geotechnical Factual Assessment, CMW Geosciences, March 2018 o J. Aboriculture Assessment, Arborlab Consultancy Services Ltd, July 2018 o K. Acoustic Assessment, Charcoalblue, November 2018 o L. Preliminary Contaminated Site Investigation, Lysaght, August 2018 o M. Urban Design Panel Hearing Meeting Minutes, 27 June 2018 o N. Pre‐Application Meeting Minutes, 31 May 2018
Schedule of Responses to Section 92 Further Information Request, Tattico, 6 June 2019
Supporting documents: o A. Heritage Responses, Archifact, 12 April 2019 o B. Transport Responses, Flow Transportation Specialists, 18 March 2019 o C. Updated Acoustic Assessment, Charcoalblue, November 2018 o D. Geotechnical Interpretive Report, (Rev 0) CMW Geosciences, September
2018 o E. Developed Design Report, Jasmax, December 2018 o F. Embassy Plaza & Victoria Street Concept Plans o G. Infrastructure Services Plan CSK 01‐01, Rev 2, Holmes Consulting, October
2018 o H. Sapper Moore‐Jones Place Long Section Drawings, Holmes Consulting,
April 2019 C00‐ 01 Index and project notes – Rev 1 C10‐01 exiting plan and profile, existing conditions and demolition
plan – Rev 1 C30 ‐01 Proposed plan and profile – Rev 1 C32 ‐01 Sweep path analysis plan‐ Rev 1
o I. Arboriculture Responses, Arborlab Consultancy Services, April 2019 o J. Soil Contamination Responses, Lysaght, 23 January 2019
Schedule of Additional Responses to Section 92 Further Information Request, Tattico, 14 August 2019
Supporting documents: o Photo 1 ‐ Arch Headed Decorative Window o Photo 2 ‐ Square Headed Decorative Window o Photo 3 ‐ The Queen's Suite ‐ Original Cabinetry o Photo 4 ‐ The Queen's Suite ‐ Ivory Inlay Drawer Handle o Photo 5 ‐ The Queen's Suite ‐ Built‐In Cabinetry o Additional Transport Response, Flow Transportation Specialists, 8 July 2019 o Geotechnical Interpretive Report, (Rev 1) CMW Geosciences, June 2019
o Draft Archaeological Management Plan, Clough & Associates, April 2019
Further Civil Infrastructure Design Drawings, Holmes Consultants, 14 June 2019 o C01‐02‐E existing conditions and drainage demolition plan, Rev 5 o C01‐03‐E existing conditions and contour plan, Rev 1 o C02‐01‐E enabling earthworks contour‐grading plan and levels, Rev 3 o C03‐01‐E enabling cut fill plan and volumes, Rev 3 o C05‐01‐E enabling earthworks sections A‐B, Rev 4 o C02‐01 proposed contours and levels plan overall, Rev 4 o C02‐02 proposed contours and levels plan south, Rev 4 o C02‐03 proposed contours and levels plan north, Rev 4 o C05‐01 proposed overall services plan, Rev 4 o C06‐01 proposed stormwater services plan, Rev 4 o C07‐01 proposed stormwater longitudinal sections, Rev 3 o C08‐01 proposed wastewater services plan, Rev 4 o C10‐01 proposed wastewater longitudinal sections, Rev 3 o C11‐01 proposed water/other services plan, Rev 4 o C15‐01 services details, Rev 1
Updated Streetscape Perspective Drawings, Jasmax, June 2018
Victoria Street Elevation Drawing Rev C, Jasmax, August 2019
Precast Detail Images, Jasmax, December 2018
Hamilton Boutique Hotel Heritage Salvage Items Report Rev A, Jasmax, August 2019
Servant's Quarters Photo
Revised Embassy Plaza Concept and Cross Sections Rev B, Jasmax, September 2019
Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan, Southbase Construction, July 2019
Addendum to Archaeological Assessment, Clough & Associates, September 2019
Proposed On‐Street Parking Changes Diagram – Appendix A to the statement of Transportation evidence of Russell Aleck Brandon, 1 October 2019
ANNEXURE B
Tree Location Plan
ANNEXURE C
Indicative Operational parking plan
50% Theatre Capacity Temporary Drop‐off / Pick‐up car parking provision
75% Theatre Capacity Temporary Drop‐off / Pick‐up car parking provision
Identified Buildings to be included within the Neighbour Liaison Group and be subject to Pre‐commencement Building Condition Surveys
ANNEXURE D
Identified Buildings
ATTACHMENT 1 – BRIEF SUMMARY OF SUBMITTER EVIDENCE & SUMMARY OF ALL
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
Ms Vanessa Williams outlined that the Hamilton Business Association supported the proposal
and would have a positive impact in that part of the CBD. She noted there was no one silver
bullet but that the theatre would contribute to the rejuvenation of the area and result in
increased commercial activity in the CBD.
Mr Toby Braun (acting for Mr Murray Vereker‐Bindon of Three Oaks Trust) presented written
submissions on behalf of his client outline concerns about the potential effect of construction
activities on his client’s property, being Unit 3, 240 Victoria Street. In particular concerns in
regard to noise and vibration effects were highlighted. He also outlined the need for
enforceable consent conditions to protect adjoining properties.
Ms Jo Bailey outlined concerns regarding noise both during construction and the operation
of the theatre complex. Concerns regarding potential impacts of vibration, construction
process giving rise to geotechnical issues, construction hours, the redevelopment of Embassy
Park and light pollution were noted.
Heritage NZ
‐Ms Rebecca Vertongen in her legal submissions acknowledged that the proposal would
provide social and economic benefits through regeneration of the area but could not support
building on the urupa as there w s insufficient information on the extent of the urupa. She
also discussed archaeological authorities and what HNZPT needs to have regard to in
considering applications for such.
‐Ms Carolyn McAlley noted that concerns regarding built heritage had been addressed
through recommended conditions in the s42A report subject to amendments outlined in in
summary statement. In respect of archaeological and cultural values, further information was
sought in respect of consultation with tangata whenua who were interested in the project,
the undertaking of an archaeological survey, and the appropriateness of the proposed works
in the urupa.
‐Dr Rachel Darmody was that the proposal would destroy part of the urupa and that there
had been no archaeological evidence produced to say that there are no burials in the urupa.
In addition, she was of the view that there was not enough information available to assess
any potential effects on archaeological values of the proposal within the scheduled urupa.
Dr Darmody proposed that there needed to be an archaeological survey to map to define the
extent of the urupa and to understand the current features and landforms within the area.
She was of the view that the proposal should not be built on a scheduled urupa.
‐Ms Robin Byron outlined support for the project from a built heritage perspective, but
contingent on the proposed conditions being imposed. She was of the view that significant
built heritage would be retained and that there was an opportunity to take the hotel which is
in a in a dilapidated condition and while some of it will be demolished, the opportunity is
provide to restore the façade and shop fronts.
Ms Byron considered that the proposal set the benchmark for regeneration of the area. She
was of the opinion that while heritage values were being lost, on balance the proposed
mitigation made the proposal acceptable and that essential heritage qualities would be
retained and/or repurposed.
‐Ms Makere Rika‐Hekelt outlined that consultation and engagement with some tangata
whenua groups had been robust but that NAMTOK had not been afforded similar
opportunities or input extended to other groups.
She was of the view that the applicant had provided insufficient information to be able to
gauge if the applicant had been proactive in undertaking consultation with all mana whenua
groups, and that this should occur where such groups have expressed an interest in the
proposal.
Mr Sonny Karena and Mr Rawiri Bidois (THAWK) outlined that THAWK had been extensively
consulted by Momentum on the proposal for over a year and had just completed a Cultural
Impact assessment. That assessment identified that the proposal would have a low impact
upon tangata whenua and their values and traditions if the recommendations of the CIA are
adopted and implemented through the life of the project. They further outlined that the
scheduling process in respect of the urupa was for information purposes and signalled that
extra care needed to be undertaken when undertaking any activity on the site. It was noted
that they were not even sure that the urupa was on the subject site.
Support for the project was re‐iterated subject to appropriate conditions particularly in
respect of cultural safety matters and protocols relating to any discovery of human remains.
Background to the establishment of THAWK was also provided and they noted that NAMTOK
did not have a mandate on behalf of mana whenua.
Mr Carl de Leeuw outlined concerns regarding any potential access closures to his property.
He also highlighted his concern about the extension of the screen extending into Embassy
Park and the open space between the proposal and the river. He felt that it was inappropriate
and had the potential to impact on his views and vista from his property. Concerns relating to
construction activity and noise, traffic impacts, and construction days and hours were also
outlined. The re‐development of Embassy Park and a concern about the removal of easy
access to the river area were also noted.
Mr Murray Earl outlined that along with his wife, they were the owners of units located at
238/240 Victoria Street. He noted his respect for those who had made submissions with
respect to the preservation of the sacred part of the subject site and supported preservation
of that part of the site.
Concerns were outlined about the lack of engagement, poor process undertaken by the
Council and the disappearance of heritage. Other concerns related to increased danger to
clients wishing to cross Victoria Street, traffic movements along Victoria Street and current
congestion, dust arising from construction, and use of his carpark area by theatre patrons. He
sought that if consent was granted that his carpark be fenced and gated given it was the
closest carpark to the proposed theatre.
Mr Earl also sought that the application be declined and re‐advertised.
Mr Niall Baker representing the Waikato Heritage Group (WHG) spoke to his tabled
statement. He was accompanied by Ms Ros Empson. He noted at the outset that he was not
presenting expert planning evidence. He outlined that the WHG were concerned about the
demolition of external and internal heritage fabric of the hotel building including the ‘Queens
Suite’. He stated that the hotel was a significant anchor in the Southend Heritage Precinct,
and that not formally protected as an area, noted that the RMA defines ‘historic heritage’ as
including the surroundings of scheduled sites.
The WHG was concerned that the scale of partial demolition affects heritage values through
the loss of both external and internal heritage fabric.
Mr Baker stated that the subject site is the only historic hotel garden site remaining in
Hamilton and provided some history regarding the gardens.
He discussed the planning frameworks and that the scheduling as a Category A heritage item
set a very high threshold when considering any application to demolish a heritage item
through the use of the word ‘avoid’. He then discussed the RPS policies and objectives.
Mr Baker noted that in his opinion the determination of the application centres around
whether compelling reasons exist to require demolition. He further noted whether the
subject site was appropriate for the development.
He concluded by noting that the WHG contended that demolition was contrary to the policies
and objectives of the District Plan and that the application should be declined.
SUMMARY OF ALL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
Ref Submitter name
Address Key points / relief sought Submission status
To be heard
1 Kevin Thomas Groom
2F Riro Street, Hamilton
None Support No
2 Cheryl Robertson Go To Collection‐Madam Woo
6 Sapper Moore‐Jones Place, Hamilton
Concerns around construction effects such as truck movements, noise and dust.
Would like conditions around construction, including minimising traffic during lunch time due to business.
Neutral No
3 Murray J. Vereker‐Bindon Three Oaks Trust
Apartment 3 ‐ 240 Victoria Street, Hamilton
Concerned that applicant initially sought non‐notification.
Summary of application would have assisted.
Lack of assessment of effects on adjoining properties and lack of recognition of the six apartments at 240 Victoria Street. Concerned at what is shown on the Precinct Plan.
Considers there is ambiguity around construction period and concerned as a resident at the acoustic assessment assuming operation would be 24 hours.
Considers the silt and sand soils along the riverbank are inherently unstable and construction will cause problems; citing issues with construction of Victoria on the River.
Requests notification, that a summary is provided to himself and his neighbours and that an assessment of effects is provided.
Requests construction restricted from 7am to 6pm and a mitigation scheme for construction noise and vibration on adjoining properties.
Requests condition survey of adjoining properties prior to construction, professional vibration report, details on monitoring and mitigation, and guarantees around costs of any required repairs.
Requests applicant consults with adjoining properties to agree upon ways to mitigate effects prior to consent being granted.
Oppose Yes
4 Sarah Tse Guan Teng Carlos Joblin Holdings Ltd.
PO Box 308071, Auckland
None Support No
5 Sharryn Patricia Franklin
297 Ulster Street, Hamilton
Supports all the positives/benefits of the proposed theatre.
Theatre will be architecturally significant for Hamilton.
Support No
6 Franklin Wayne Brown
9 Perindale Drive, Hamilton
Supports proposal as it allows for a revitalisation of the CBD.
Supports the mix of contemporary and traditional designs.
Support No
7 Rachael Ann Peploe
95 Albert Street, Hamilton
Considers it will have minimal impact on the heritage of the hotel, but in fact spruce up the façade and revitalise the CBD.
Support No
Proposal will be a good thing, bringing people into CBD who will use the restaurants, motels and retail etc.
8 Joanne Michele Bailey and Murray James Barker
Apartment 4 ‐ 240 Victoria Street, Hamilton
Concerned constraints highlighted in pre‐application meeting haven’t been addressed.
No consideration in the design on the residential dwellings at 238 and 240 Victoria Street.
Notes a ‘proposed park’ is shown on the Precinct Plan yet this land cannot be acquired.
No details on noise, privacy and safety risks that will be generated on the residential dwellings.
Concerned that while the plans show the Upper River Promenade running in front of the residential dwellings, it will not connect appropriately due to contours and contradict the District Plan’s intentions around access to the river through Embassy Park.
Concerned design of promenade will see it at the same level as lower living and bedrooms of 240 Victoria Street apartments; resulting in unacceptable safety, privacy and security issues that contradicts District Plan policy and CPTED principles.
Proposal reduces the ability to provide more residential opportunities within the CBD.
No justification for the boundary encroachment into the embankment.
The design of the proposal is inconsistent with the Riverfront Development Design Guides.
Concern at vibration risk due to volume of proposed earthworks, lack of detail on works in Embassy Park given stability risks, and whether piling into embankment will be appropriate given additional Council process required.
Unsure if consideration has been given to 7.5.1aii; assessment by geotechnical engineer on stability of area.
Acoustic assessment is invalid as hasn’t considered effects on nearest residential dwellings and submitter considers there are more than 100 residents within 200m. Notes diagram in acoustic assessment shows 238 and 240 Victoria Street as ‘new art gallery’.
Concerns over appropriateness of noise survey and that assessment doesn’t consider effects of patrons within Embassy Park or theatre, hotel and food and beverage tenancies.
Despite referring to the German standard, the acoustic assessment doesn’t detail how effects will be eliminated during process and there needs to be an assessment (and pre‐construction survey) into the construction and operational vibration impacts on the 240 Victoria Street apartments.
Transport assessment highlights the troublesome traffic/travel issues of proposal being in CBD.
Concerned that use of heavy vibration rollers and piling highlighted in geotechnical assessment has not been considered in acoustic assessment.
While theatre, hotel and food and beverage tenancies have potential to add value to residential dwellings, noise, security, privacy and
Oppose Yes
vibration risks could disadvantage value of dwellings.
Requests drawings are amended to correctly reflect environment and redevelopment of the area.
Request the promenade’s height and distance to 240 Victoria Street apartments is amended.
Requests a new acoustic and vibration assessment is prepared that considers all affected.
Requests a condition survey of 240 Victoria Street apartments prior to construction so damage caused by construction can be identified, and liabilities/remedy commitments are established.
9 Mark Hatwell Hatwell Properties Ltd
PO Box 162, Hamilton
Concerns around traffic management, hours of construction and overall duration, disruption to parking, parking of construction personnel and ability to develop site in the future.
Concerned as has not been provided information to date on how traffic management for Sapper Moore‐Jones Place will be conducted.
Has questions on whether the street will remain open during construction and how public will gain access to the theatre from the promenade.
Requests that he is kept informed of these matters before consent is granted.
Neutral Yes
10 Eric Gerald Clark
Apartment 6 ‐ 240 Victoria Street, Hamilton
Refer to the key points / relief sought for submission 8 Joanne Michele Bailey and Murray James Barker
Oppose Yes
11 Mark Walton 104 Oceanview Road, Mt Maunganui
Proposal will have a real positive impact on the regeneration of the city centre and region.
Support No
12 David Ian Bourke and Christine Anne Bourke
14 Riro Street, Hamilton
The proposal will create substantial noise in an Amphitheatre environment, causing nuisance to the residential area.
Oppose the removal of the three significant trees, which are landmarks.
Oppose Yes
13 Niall Baker Waikato Heritage Group
18 Sadler Street, Hamilton
WHG oppose the proposal and are concerned at the loss of historic heritage.
Consider the heritage assessment and consideration of alternatives is inadequate.
Concerned at the loss of three significant trees.
Consider the proposal is contrary to Part 2 of the RMA.
Consider the AEE has not had regard to the relevant provisions of the District Plan, including strategic framework and heritage objectives and policies, or the Regional Policy Statement.
Notes as a non‐complying activity the requirements of section 104D of the RMA.
Considers the Queen’s Suite to be an important part of the hotel.
Considers insufficient consideration to HCC’s Heritage Policy has been had. Given heritage panel has now been dissolved, unclear on how heritage has been considered.
Notes the District Plan’s heritage provisions are currently under review as a result of limitations in heritage protection being identified.
Oppose Yes
Considers the hotel is a significant anchor in the heritage precinct of the south‐end and notes the RMA’s definition of historic heritage includes surroundings.
Considers the site has extensive history given it is one of only two remaining historic hotels.
Considers little consideration has been given to the historic gardens and the interiors. While rules don’t arguably protect the interiors, there are spaces that should be protected.
Considers the degree of demolition to the hotel, gardens and trees will have more than minor effects on the environment – that may well be significant.
Considers the removal of the historic river façade and the gardens destroys the understanding of the historic values of the river side of the hotel.
Considers the protection of historic trees should be considered under heritage values for the historic place in addition to the STEM system which is limited in giving historic context.
Requests that HCC or the applicant commission a full survey of the garden which records all elements, patterns, materials etc. with a full plant inventory. Considers the removal of the garden may be a significant adverse environmental effect.
Requests a heritage landscape architect identify heritage values as a more appropriate recognition of the trees and historic gardens.
Considers a robust assessment of the proposal cannot occur without this information.
14 Tony Morgan and Helen Jarman
Apartment 1 ‐ 240 Victoria Street, Hamilton
No consideration in the design on the residential dwellings at 238 and 240 Victoria Street.
Notes a ‘proposed park’ is shown on the Precinct Plan.
No details on noise, privacy and safety risks that will be generated on the residential dwellings.
Concern at vibration risk due to volume of proposed earthworks, lack of detail on works in Embassy Park given stability risks, and whether piling into embankment will be appropriate given additional Council process required.
Unsure if consideration has been given to 7.5.1aii; assessment by geotechnical engineer on stability of area.
Acoustic assessment is invalid as hasn’t considered effects on nearest residential dwellings and submitter considers there are more than 100 residents within 200m. Notes diagram in acoustic assessment shows 238 and 240 Victoria Street as ‘new art gallery’.
The acoustic assessment doesn’t consider the noise and vibration effects, including from increased heavy vehicles during construction, on the 240 Victoria Street apartments.
Concerned that use of heavy vibration rollers and piling highlighted in geotechnical assessment has not been considered in acoustic assessment.
Concerned at pre and post development stormwater calculations within the civil services report, noting no mitigation for the 2‐year storm event. Considers the sizing of the 10‐year storm
Oppose Yes
event for the orifice does not ensure it will be big enough.
Considers the water supply analysis is cursory and not in accordance with HCC model.
Requests drawings are amended to correctly reflect environment and redevelopment of the area.
Request the promenade’s height and distance to 240 Victoria Street apartments is amended.
Requests a new acoustic and vibration assessment is prepared that considers all affected.
Requests a condition survey of 240 Victoria Street apartments prior to construction so damage caused by construction can be identified, and liabilities/remedy commitments are established.
15 Vanessa Williams Hamilton Central Business Association
The proposal aligns with the HCBA’s focus on growing activities, events and experiences within the CBD to increase foot traffic for local businesses and revitalise the CBD.
Supports the proposal given the various benefits for the region.
Support Yes
16 Brian James Squair
156 Beerescourt Road, Hamilton
Supports the proposal and cites research around how civic anchors such as theatres provide a wide range of positive social, economic and cultural effects.
Support No
17 Rawiri Bidios Te Haa O Te Whenua o Kirikiriroa (THAWK)
Po Box 13054, Hamilton
Supports the proposal subject to the completion of the agreed upon consultation plan to provide for the cultural safety of the proposal during construction.
Proposal is supported but THAWK reserves the right to withdraw support should the cultural safety plan not be implemented as agreed.
Support Yes
18 Arikinui Paretope ARA Linda Te Namu Smith Te Hauauru Rohe Wakaminenga of the Confederation of United Tribes
PO Box 27096, Hamilton
Failure to consult or get consent (section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002)
Desecration of an Urupa is a breach of tikanga, native customary title and treaty rights
Waikato‐Tainui and THaWK does not represent them
Oppose Yes
19 Nicola Hamon 12 Gavin Heights, Hamilton
Submitters to HCC’s 10‐year plan rejected the commitment to give $25 million to the proposal, and it will increase city debt.
The removal of an A ranked heritage building sets a precedent for the removal of others.
The hotel and its historic garden should be afforded full protection given it is one of only two historic hotels in the city.
Removal of the significant trees is opposed as the current system does not protect them.
Requests a Heritage Landscape Architect assesses the historic garden/trees.
Oppose No
20
Orlando Robbins
171A Victoria Street, Hamilton
Generally neutral to the proposal as a whole
Opposes the red oxide/brown colour scheme as considers it depressing.
Requests the finish be re‐designed to bring it into the 21st century.
Oppose / Neutral
No
21 C Murray Earl 240 Victoria Street, Hamilton
Opposes the whole proposal on the basis that it is contrary to Council and Regional Council strategies and policies.
Considers will cause adverse environmental effects that cannot be adequately managed.
The proposal does not promote the purpose and principles of the RMA.
Oppose Yes
22 C Murray Earl and Lynden Ann Earl
1 Rostrevor Street, Hamilton
Opposes the whole proposal on the basis that it is contrary to Council and Regional Council strategies and policies.
Considers will cause adverse environmental effects that cannot be adequately managed.
The proposal does not promote the purpose and principles of the RMA.
Oppose Yes
23 Alicia Todd Fire and Emergency New Zealand
PO Box 3942, Wellington
FENZ recognize the importance of the proposal in terms of supporting the revitalisation of the CBD and providing for the cultural and social aspirations of the city.
The risk of fire represents a potential adverse effect of low probability but high impact.
The proposal therefore needs to consider the operational requirements of FENZ to adequately provide for firefighting emergency response activities on site.
FENZ notes that the applicant assumes the required water supply demand for firefighting will be available and assumes a sprinkler system will be provided throughout.
FENZ notes there is a risk of conflict between patrons exiting the theatre foyer in the event of an emergency against firefighters entering at the same location, and that the existing hydrants within Victoria Street and Sapper Moore‐Jones Place are poorly located.
FENZ recommend that careful consideration is given to an evacuation procedure.
FENZ seeks a condition of consent requiring water supply and access be provided in accordance with SNZ PAS 4509:2008.
Neutral Yes
24 Carl Peter de Leeuw
238a Victoria Street, Hamilton
Concerned constraints highlighted in pre‐application meeting haven’t been addressed.
Notes inconsistencies between application form, certificates of title, the public notice and reports supporting the proposal in terms of inclusion of Embassy Park.
Acoustic assessment hasn’t considered effects on 238 and 240 Victoria Street instead showing a ‘new art gallery’. Concerns over appropriateness of noise survey.
Oppose the redevelopment of Embassy Park turning it into a ‘front door’ to the theatre.
The elevated boardwalk has no sense of connection with the river. Considers works in Embassy Park will remove existing connections to river and is an adverse effect not positive.
Considers the proposal will deliver increased noise to the surrounding area, damage to an archaeological site, loss of privacy to residents, damage to habitat (roost trees in Embassy Park for ruru and tui), regular heavy vehicle truck movements and loss of links to the river compared to existing uses.
Oppose Yes
Proposal will turn Sapper Moore‐Jones Place into a service lane with access restrictions.
Oppose temporary closures of Victoria Street for large events as will restrict their access.
No consideration in the design on the residential dwellings at 238 and 240 Victoria Street, with a ‘proposed park’ is shown on the Precinct Plan.
No details on noise, privacy and safety risks that will be generated on residential dwellings.
Concerned at the lack of detail on Embassy Park, such as retaining effect/surcharge on 240 Victoria Street, drainage/discharge measures, protection from falling, privacy.
Concerned at the loss of footpath on Sapper Moore‐Jones Place and reduction on pedestrian‐orientated area. Unsure on what pedestrian protection measures are proposed.
Concerned at the arboricultural response provided (in draft), such as no justification for large variances between HCC scores and revised one, no response on heat radiation, discrepancy on what significant trees are proposed to be removed.
Proposal reduces the ability to provide more residential opportunities within the CBD.
No justification for the boundary encroachment into the embankment, with the screen structure encroaching into the vista of 238 and 240 Victoria Street which may expect unfettered vistas when abutting the riverbank.
Concerned the illuminated screen will affect day and night cycle for birds and wildlife.
The design of the proposal is inconsistent with the Riverfront Development Design Guides.
Concerned at Developed Design Report seeking to ‘encourage 24‐hour activity’ which is not in keeping with the adjoining residential dwellings at 238 and 240 Victoria Street.
Concerned that while the plans show the Upper River Promenade running in front of the residential dwellings, it will not connect appropriately due to contours and contradict the District Plan’s intentions around access to the river through Embassy Park.
Concerned at the lack of detail on Embassy Park (earthworks etc.), yet it shows redeveloped plaza at RL39500 which is above 238 and 240 Victoria Street, with no details on structural impact or detail of mitigation around light, privacy, noise.
Acoustic assessment hasn’t considered effects on nearest residential dwellings and submitter considers there are more than 100 residents within 200m. Notes diagram in acoustic assessment shows 238 and 240 Victoria Street as ‘new art gallery’.
Concerns over appropriateness of noise survey.
Despite referring to the German standard, the acoustic assessment doesn’t detail how effects will be eliminated during process and there needs to be an assessment (and pre‐construction survey) into the construction and operational vibration impacts on the 238 and 240 Victoria Street apartments.
Requests a new acoustic and vibration assessment is prepared that considers all affected.
Concerned that use of heavy vibration rollers and piling highlighted in geotechnical assessment has not been considered in acoustic assessment.
Requests drawings are amended to correctly reflect environment and redevelopment of the area and reflects the entire development (e.g. Embassy Park).
Requests a new acoustic and vibration assessment is prepared that considers all affected.
Requests a condition survey of 238 and 240 Victoria Street apartments prior to construction so damage caused by construction can be identified.
Requests that closest residents are considered within the proposed Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.
Requests defined working hours during construction which consider adjacent residents.
Requests condition requiring double‐glazing of 238 and 240 Victoria Street apartments.
25 Pieternella Frederika de Leeuw
Apartment 5 ‐ 240 Victoria Street, Hamilton
Concerned constraints highlighted in pre‐application meeting haven’t been addressed.
Notes inconsistencies between application form, certificates of title, the public notice and reports supporting the proposal in terms of inclusion of Embassy Park.
Acoustic assessment hasn’t considered effects on 238 and 240 Victoria Street instead showing a ‘new art gallery’. Concerns over appropriateness of noise survey.
Oppose the redevelopment of Embassy Park turning it into a ‘front door’ to the theatre.
The elevated boardwalk has no sense of connection with the river. Considers works in Embassy Park will remove existing connections to river and is an adverse effect not positive.
Concerned that while the plans show the Upper River Promenade running in front of the residential dwellings, it will not connect appropriately due to contours and contradict the District Plan’s intentions around access to the river through Embassy Park.
Concerned design of promenade will see it at the same level as lower living and bedrooms of 240 Victoria Street apartments; resulting in unacceptable safety, privacy and security issues that contradicts District Plan policy and CPTED principles.
Considers the proposal will deliver increased noise to the surrounding area, damage to an archaeological site, loss of privacy to residents, damage to habitat (roost trees in Embassy Park for ruru and tui), regular heavy vehicle truck movements and loss of links to the river compared to existing uses.
Proposal will turn Sapper Moore‐Jones Place into a service lane with access restrictions.
Oppose temporary closures of Victoria Street for large events as will restrict their access.
Oppose Yes
No consideration in the design on the residential dwellings at 238 and 240 Victoria Street, with a ‘proposed park’ is shown on the Precinct Plan.
No details on noise, privacy and safety risks that will be generated on residential dwellings.
Concerned at the lack of detail on Embassy Park, such as retaining effect/surcharge on 240 Victoria Street, drainage/discharge measures, protection from falling, privacy.
Concerned at the loss of footpath on Sapper Moore‐Jones Place and reduction on pedestrian‐orientated area. Unsure on what pedestrian protection measures are proposed.
Concerned at the arboricultural response provided (in draft), such as no justification for large variances between HCC scores and revised one, no response on heat radiation, discrepancy on what significant trees are proposed to be removed.
Proposal reduces the ability to provide more residential opportunities within the CBD.
No justification for the boundary encroachment into the embankment, with the screen structure encroaching into the vista of 238 and 240 Victoria Street which may expect unfettered vistas when abutting the riverbank.
Concerned the illuminated screen will affect day and night cycle for birds and wildlife.
The design of the proposal is inconsistent with the Riverfront Development Design Guides.
Concerned at Developed Design Report seeking to ‘encourage 24‐hour activity’ which is not in keeping with the adjoining residential dwellings at 238 and 240 Victoria Street.
Concerned that while the plans show the Upper River Promenade running in front of the residential dwellings, it will not connect appropriately due to contours and contradict the District Plan’s intentions around access to the river through Embassy Park.
Concerned at the lack of detail on Embassy Park (earthworks etc.), yet it shows redeveloped plaza at RL39500 which is above 238 and 240 Victoria Street, with no details on structural impact or detail of mitigation around light, privacy, noise.
Acoustic assessment hasn’t considered effects on nearest residential dwellings and submitter considers there are more than 100 residents within 200m. Notes diagram in acoustic assessment shows 238 and 240 Victoria Street as ‘new art gallery’.
Concerns over appropriateness of noise survey.
Despite referring to the German standard, the acoustic assessment doesn’t detail how effects will be eliminated during process and there needs to be an assessment (and pre‐construction survey) into the construction and operational vibration impacts on the 238 and 240 Victoria Street apartments.
Requests a new acoustic and vibration assessment is prepared that considers all affected.
Concerned that use of heavy vibration rollers and piling highlighted in geotechnical assessment has not been considered in acoustic assessment.
Requests drawings are amended to correctly reflect environment and redevelopment of the area and reflects the entire development (e.g. Embassy Park).
Requests a new acoustic and vibration assessment is prepared that considers all affected.
Request the promenade’s height and distance to 240 Victoria Street apartments is amended.
Requests a condition survey of 238 and 240 Victoria Street apartments prior to construction so damage caused by construction can be identified.
Requests that closest residents are considered within the proposed Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.
Requests defined working hours during construction which consider adjacent residents.
Requests condition requiring double‐glazing of 238 and 240 Victoria Street apartments.
26 Victoria Property Developments Ltd
c/o – PO Box 17, Hamilton
Supports all parts of the proposal given the significant benefits the facility will enable.
Considers it is something to be proud of and will enable events not previously available.
Support No
27 Carolyn McAlley Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
PO Box 13339, Tauranga
HNZPT is supportive of the proposal in principle given the potential rejuvenation of the CBD.
Proposal will have adverse effects on historic heritage, being built heritage, archaeology and significant trees. Does not consider these matters have been adequately addressed.
Inadequate information on the specific sequence and nature of the works limits the ability to determine whether the proposed mitigation will sufficiently mitigate the adverse effects.
The site is rich in historic heritage. While several additions/modifications have been undertaken over the years, the buildings still contain several important and/or original features as identified in the Salmon Reed report.
HNZPT note the HNZPT Category 2 listing, the District Plan’s Category A scheduling, the Group 2 archaeological scheduling and the 5x significant tree scheduling.
The archaeological assessment is insufficient in terms of detail, with the effects of the proposed works unclear and an accidental discovery protocol not appropriate.
Concerned at the lack of detail which makes it difficult to determine if the proposed mitigation could be commensurate to the adverse effects on built heritage.
Request greater level of detail on new hotel to ensure demolition of other heritage buildings can be considered mitigated an ensure historic hotel doesn’t face uncertain future.
Request greater detail on works staging as it appears the construction of the hotel will be occurring after the theatre and no details on the stabilization of the hotel is provided.
Request that the street‐facing frontages are ‘faithfully’ reinstated.
Oppose Yes
Request a greater recess between the hotel and the extension to the north along Victoria Street to allow more ‘breathing space’, particularly at parapet level.
Request the three‐dimensional integrity of the heritage fabric is retained, as it is important that the rear elevations are not blown out at the back. No details are currently provided.
Request they are involved in the design/details of any required seismic works on the hotel.
Request that a suitable and meaningful location needs to be found for the wooden stairs and the associated leaded glass windows given the exceptional heritage value.
Request the remaining features of the Queen’s Suite are reinstated within the hotel.
Requests that a programme of interpretation (in addition to recording prior to demolition) needs to be incorporated into the design that reflects the rich history of the site.
Requests that an ‘envelope’ is developed for any signage proposed on the canopy as not detail is currently provided.
Request certainty from suitably qualified experts that every endeavor will be made to ensure the long‐term health and longevity of the remaining significant trees.
Request that an advice note is included advising of the need for an archaeological authority.
28 Taroi Rawiri Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated (Waikato‐Tainui)
Po Box 848, Hamilton
Confirms Waikato‐Tainui have a working relationship with the applicant and others associated with the proposal.
Requests that Waikato‐Tainui are consulted on the naming of the theatre and suggests the name reflects Hamilton, and tāngata whenua’s relationship with the river/historic heritage.
Waikato‐Tainui have reviewed the assessment of Maori values prepared by THaWK.
Waikato‐Tainui acknowledges the commitment to ongoing engagement with tāngata whenua, and looks forward to continuing this throughout the development
Waikato‐Tainui concurs with the recommendations in the assessment of Maori values, including expectation that protocols will be followed to notify the tāngata whenua working group (THaWK and Waikato‐Tainui) of any discovery of artefacts or human remains.
Requests that Waikato‐Tainui are notified and contribute to all management plans proposed in the development.
Requests that all management plans be assessed against the Vision and Strategy and Tai Timu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao (Waikato‐Tainui) Environmental Plan and such assessment be relayed to Waikato‐Tainui for discussion.
Support No
Top Related