|
Reason for decision
The Objector’s legal representative confirmed that
the Committee has a reasonably broad judgement as to whether a proposed route
is practical or not and that matters such as the number of properties
affected and the layout of development on properties are relevant matters to
consider.
The Objectors’ engineer Mr Balajardia considered
there are 3 practical routes available to address stormwater on the
Applicant’s site (Mr Balajardia’s options 1, 3 and 4) and gave
evidence that the route preferred by the Applicant and Council staff was not
practical due to recent construction of a retaining wall and driveway.
The Objectors’ proposed Option 1 is to connect to
the stormwater manhole on the opposite side of Kitchener Road. Evidence
was provided by the Applicant’s engineer Mr Lamason that this option
would require pumping, there were significant services within the roadway
including water, wastewater, electrical, gas and telecommunications and
trenching would likely be required on Kitchener Road resulting in traffic
disruption to a major road. Mr Balajardia suggested the driveway could
be raised to address the need for pumping. Mr Lamason in reply stated
that resource consent had been obtained for a minor height in relation to
boundary infringement for the development. The driveway would need to
be raised 2m to address the need for pumping but retaining walls supporting
the driveway would still need stormwater drainage at the bottom. The
houses would need to also be raised and it was unlikely Council would consent
a large height in relation to boundary infringement. The Committee
considers the Objectors’ Option 1 is not a practical route due to the
need for pumping or raising the driveway and houses, constraints around
existing services, and the impact of works including trenching on traffic
flows on Kitchener Road.
The Objectors’ proposed option 3 is to connect to
the manhole on the corner of Frieston Road and Kitchener Road. Mr Lamason
provided evidence that this manhole is too shallow and would also require
pumping or raising the driveway and houses. The Committee considers
that option 3 is not a practical route.
The Objectors’ proposed option 4 is a connection
through 6 Crete Avenue. Mr Lamason for the Applicant gave evidence that
this route is through 9 separately owned properties and that it would not be
possible to get machinery onto the site without significant disturbance of
existing landscaping which would require considerable reinstatement and the
location of the works was close to an existing public wastewater line. The
Committee considers that this route is not practical given the number of
affected owners over a longer route, site constraints and significant
disturbance to landscaping.
The Committee is satisfied that the Applicant considered a
number of different options, including the options supported by the
Objectors, and agree with the Applicant that the only practical route is across
12 Crete Avenue, Milford, as shown on Lamason Consulting Ltd engineers
drawing 003 revision B and 004 revision A. Council will be responsible
for the works and reinstatement of 12 Crete Avenue, including any damage or
reinstatement required to retaining walls or the driveway.
|
