Posts

Posted on

Babbage Cons Unlimited

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Babbage Cons Unlimited, Incomplete R/C application
Hi Anthony,

As discussed, one of the potential reasons for the proposed application at Birkley Road being rejected initially by North Shore City Council was the incomplete application form.

The application form shown to me by yourself was incomplete and would have been rejected by Council outright. Omissions included the following:

*
There was no description of the site itself;
*
The agents contact details were not completed;
*
A list of the items to be attached to the application was not included; and
*
The debtors section was not completed and the final signature not obtained (as only the applicants themselves can complete these two sections, Babbage should have directed you to fill this in before they attempted to lodge).

Although there were other reasons for the Council rejecting the application at lodgement stage, an incomplete application form is the first stumbling block. Other omissions that I am aware of at this stage include failure to assess the application against the objectives, policies of the District Plan (which is absolutely essential in the case of a non-complying activity), failure to source neighbours approvals and failure to demonstrate compliance with all other development controls (which led to further questions from Council regarding the tree, rear yard etc).

Hopefully this summary helps clarify why the Council may have rejected the initial application.

Kind regards,
Melissa
Planner
Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited
Level 1 Dilworth House 71 Great South Road Newmarket Auckland 1051
PO Box 5760 Wellesley Street Auckland 1141 New Zealand
P +64 9 917 5019 * F +64 9 917 5040
E [email protected]
W www.harrisongrierson.com

Posted on

Hello world!

Good morning Anthony,

After working on the report yesterday afternoon, I have a few queries for you this morning. I thought I’d put them in an email initially, however it might be better if you gave me a call to discuss:

* The resource consent plans from 2003 (when you applied for the height in relation to boundary infringements) note that the building coverage at the time was 122.47 sq m or 34.99%, just under the allowable 35% limit. The plans prepared by Babbage show the proposed building coverage to be 41%, but their report states that the existing coverage is 41% and that it will be increased to 47%. Council has noted that the building coverage will be 47%, on the basis of Babbage’s report. I am unclear as to which of these figures is correct. If you haven’t done any work on the property since the resource consent was granted in 2003, I would have assumed that the existing coverage was still at 35%, and that the increase of 21.4sq m of coverage would only take you to 41% (as stated on Babbage’s plans, but not in their report). Please give me a call to discuss.

* I note that the low deck area that I saw on site in the south eastern corner of the property is not shown on Babbage’s plans. Was there a reason for this? Currently the plans show this area as landscaping.

Hopefully you will be able to clarify these points for me!

Kind regards,

Melissa Planner