From:
Blair Devlin
To:
"ANNIE WESTON";
Adonica Giborees
Subject:
TRIM: Reply to two issues raised by Ms Annie Weston on 21 October re 9 Boyes Crescent
Date:
Wednesday, 5 November 2014 8:12:45 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi Annie,
Thanks for your email below and apologies for the delay in replying.
In terms of your
issue #1, I do not agree the retaining wall is 500mm too high. From my viewing
of the resource consent plans (RM990663) the wall is in accordance with those plans (however
as Adonica has mentioned, the decision refers to “amended plans” that we do not have on file).
From my visit to the site, it was apparent the ground level on the adjoining Council owned lot
moves up and down, and there is one area where there is a dip in the ground level and the
height of the retaining wall is greater than 2.5metres. As this is caused by the ground level on the
Council lot rather than the site in question, I am not convinced it is a breach of RM990663. We
have advised that we have no legal ability to revisit or recall a consent that has already been
issued. That is a matter of fact. The only legal option to do so is through a judicial review in the
High Court.
With regard to the entry wall, unlike the above, this clearly was not in accordance with the
resource consent and compliance was sought from the consent holder. So the situations are
quite different.
In terms of your
issue#2, as previously advised, the earthworks that were undertaken in order to
place the foundation on the site, have been confirmed through a surveyors certificate as being in
accordance with the resource consent. The earthworks that were done to raise up the entire
site were a permitted activity at the time. It is incorrect to state there is 1000m3 of unconsented
fill on the site, when the filling was done at a time when resource consent for earthworks was
note required. The photo you attached appears to show a small pile of topsoil that will be spread
over the site, presumably to plant grass. This type of landscaping is a normal part of completing
development on the site, and it will not materially change the ground level in the area. As noted
previously, while the permitted volume of earthworks was apparently exceeded there was no
effect on the environment as surveyors certificate confirmed the dwelling was where it had been
consented. Council has a discretion as to whether to undertake enforcement action. As
previously explained, as the works had been completed, and there were no other environmental
effects arising from the earthworks such as dust, sediment run-off, or material being tracked on
to the road we determined it was not expedient to pursue enforcement action.
Kind regards
Blair
From: ANNIE WESTON [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2014 6:45 PM
To: Blair Devlin; Adonica Giborees
Cc: Adam Feeley; Vanessa van Uden
Subject: Re: RM 130501 - Entry Wall
Hi Blair,
Thanks for your reply but unfortunately you’ve misunderstood my question.
I would appreciate it please if you could reply directly to my questions
below in red.
ISSUE #1
-In 1999 you gave a retrospective resource consent (RM 990663) that
allowed a 2500mm high retaining wall.
-It exceeded it’s resource consent by 500mm.
-In order to have it addressed you have advised that I seek judicial review in
the High Court.
-In 2014 you gave a resource consent (RM 130501) that allowed a 2000mm
entry wall.
-It exceeded it’s resource consent by 600mm.
-You have enforced compliance and asked them to rectify or apply for a
resource consent.
Please explain the difference between the two circumstances.
ISSUE #2
-In February 2014 you allowed an unlimited amount of fill to be brought in
without a resource consent on top of an unlimited amount of fill that was
contingent on above mentioned retrospective, improperly consented, illegally
complying retaining wall.
-The earthworks are NOT FINISHED. Please see attached photo taken
today.
Please note the mound of soil on the right that is YET TO BE DISBURSED
over the section.
-The total un-consented fill will be approximately 1000 cubic metres in a Low
Density Residential Zone.
-The result is that my privacy and views have been greatly affected.
-Your reason for allowing the first fill is that there were no earthworks rules
back in 1999.
-Your reason for allowing the second fill is that you don’t want to operate an
overbearing compliance regime.
Please can you direct me to the relevant provision under the RMA that allows
you to exempt developers from applying for a resource consent.
Many thanks/Annie
--
Annie Weston | Freelance Production Manager
PO Box 2444 | Queenstown 9349 | New Zealand
Cell +64 21 453 037 | Skype anniequeenstown
On 17/10/14 1:45 pm, "Blair Devlin" <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Annie,
Yes I can explain. As we have previously stated, we felt the earthworks did
not affect you as the height / placement of the dwelling was unchanged from
what was consented. While the permitted volume of earthworks was
apparently exceeded there was no effect on the environment as surveyors
certificate confirmed the dwelling was where it had been consented. As the
works had been completed, and there were no other environment al effects
arising from the earthworks such as dust, sediment run-off, or material
being tracked on to the road we determined it was not expedient to pursue
enforcement action.
The additional block work on top of the retaining wall was not part of the
approved plans for the resource consent. In any situation like there where
monitoring identifies something that does not comply with the resource
consent, we work with the applicant to achieve compliance, In this case the
applicant has confirmed they will reduce the height of the wall. We were not
specifically concerned about effects on you with regard to the wall, but
thanks for alerting us to it.
Kind regards
Blair
Blair Devlin Resource Consent Manager | Planning & Infrastructure Queenstown Lakes
District Council DD: +64 3 450 1738 P: +64 3 441 0499
E: [email address]
<
http://www.qldc.govt.nz/>
From: ANNIE WESTON [
mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2014 1:50 PM
To: Adonica Giborees; Blair Devlin
Cc: Adam Feeley; Vanessa van Uden
Subject: Re: RM 130501 - Entry Wall
Hi guys,
Thanks for the update Adonica.
Please could you explain Blair why Council is able to address this issue whilst
you recommend I seek judicial review for the 500mm breach of the consent
for the retaining wall? Which incidentally affects me considerably whilst the
entry wall doesn’t affect me at all.
As you are aware Council gave a code of compliance to the retaining wall in
2010.
Thx/Annie
