Mandeville Shops

Andrew from Swannanoa - Ohoka

The resource consent application should probably have been made “Notified”

And here are some examples of Environmental Impacts reasons why (ref “WDC Section 42A Report”).

1. Health and Safety: Auckland Council prohibit a petrol station and childcare centre being within 100m of each other. The WDC will no doubt follow their lead. Knowing this is coming then means the development is not in the community’s best interests of “Protection of the health, safety and wellbeing of present and future generations” (Section 11,. P 17).

2. Noise: The application states that it has secured written approvals from sections now known as 474 and 464 Tram Rd. These don’t exist yet – it’s all still one big section with 3 proposed lots. The development has two little paddocks either side of it. The owner of the land is his own neighbour and has given himself consent. This sets a troubling legal precedent for future development applications in NZ (Section 10.2, P 13 – see last paragraph, “persons” – there is only one person involved here).

3. Non-compliance: The plan is non-compliant and non-binding, therefore we cannot know what new non-compliance issues will crop up with a revised plan – and the plan must be revised. “… the applicant will still need to apply for a stormwater discharge consent from Environment Canterbury when the design is finalised” (Section 8, P 9). Further, we cannot assume that any new non-compliance issue will in fact actually be ‘minor or less than minor’.

4. Positive or beneficial effect: “….there will be benefits to the local and wider community in terms of availability of goods and services” (Section 10.7, P 14). This is a flawed premise – refer to Neighbourly post on Estimated Profit and Loss Statement headed ‘Mandeville Shops’ dated 16/12/2016, or any other independent survey/analysis.

5. Reserve Land: “No works are proposed to reserve land…” (Section 8, P 9). However, the Application For Resource Consent clearly shows a new foot path through Crown Land on its northern boundary – presumably for pedestrian access from Millfield. See Apollo Projects ‘Locality Plan’ map. An inconsistency and presumably ‘publicly notifiable’ too.

I’m no expert but, I think these might be valid talking points for the parties in tomorrow’s hearing – will these matters be brought to the Commissioner’s attention?