[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-255152-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":73,"doc-detail-255152-en":118},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":66,"head_meta":68,"extra_data":70,"updated_unix":72},105,"en","applicant-response-table-to-comments-received-from-auckland-council","Applicant Response Table - To Comments received from Auckland Council","","Applicant responses set out how an integrated residential development proposal aligns with Auckland Council requirements and relevant statutory and plan provisions. The table addresses comment items covering land use consent, activity status and gateway test considerations, and specific rule applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Auckland Unitary Plan. Responses clarify proposed development elements, access and servicing arrangements, stormwater discharge approach, and the legal interpretation of whether rules apply to the proposal, including references to court guidance and planning rule purpose.",{"@graph":14,"@context":65},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/applicant-response-table-to-comments-received-from-auckland-council/255152/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/applicant-response-table-to-comments-received-from-auckland-council/255152.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aran","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-09-13",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How do the responses address activity status and the gateway test?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The responses explain that the proposal fits the integrated residential development definition and discuss why certain district plan rules apply, including reference to statutory interpretation of enactment purpose and the need to consider the gateway test prior to granting consent if the application is assessed as non-complying.","Answer","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":67,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":69,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":71,"site_id":7},255152,1790670248,{"code":4,"msg":74,"data":75},"success",[76,81,86,91,96,101,106,110,114],{"id":77,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":78,"show_sort_weight":79,"slug":80},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":82,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":83,"show_sort_weight":84,"slug":85},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":87,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":92,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":97,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":102,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":107,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},18,30,"letters",{"id":111,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":113},21,"Paper Templates","papers-templates",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":117},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":74,"data":119},{"doc_id":71,"user_id":120,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":121,"doc_module":22,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":122,"file_id":123,"file_url":124,"file_type":125,"file_size":126,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":7,"language":127,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":128,"faqs":129,"seo_title":130,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":131,"read_time":132},137455076865,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Applicant Response Table – To Comments received from Auckland Council  \n\n| Item number | Comment | Applicant Response |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Planning Report – Audrey Liu (Auckland Council) |  |  |\n| 1. | Proposal\u003Cbr>I generally concur with the description of the proposal in section 4 of the AEE. This can be summarised as follows:\u003Cbr>Land use consent (s9 of Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA1991)\u003Cbr>• The proposal is for an Integrated Residential Development (IRD) with a total of 110 residential dwellings across 18 building blocks A-N, and community facilities for the onsite occupants including a community hall (Block O), a multi-use games area, a playground, a courtyard/BBQ space, and an informal bush recreation space. The bush recreation space includes a 135m long track loop and seating within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) .\u003Cbr>• The proposed access to the development includers a shared vehicle access from Verran Road, and a pedestrian access from West Glade Crescent. The proposal also includes new private roads, and onsite occupants’ parking spaces including 117 car parks and 110 bike parks.\u003Cbr>• Site works including demolition of existing dwellings, bulk earthworks of 20,911 .5m3, vegetation clearance prior to the building construction, and landscaping post-development.\u003Cbr>• Vegetation removal and control of weeds and animal pests.\u003Cbr>• Infrastructure services installation including installation of drainage and utilities, and formation of new private roads.\u003Cbr>• The proposed development with a proposed impervious area of 4618m2 will be connected to a new public stormwater network which discharges into the existing stream. The proposed stormwater discharge can utilise Auckland Council’s Regionwide Network Discharge Consent (NDC) if the | Response provided by Feitong Chen, Senior Planner, Civix Ltd:\u003Cbr>I agree with the summary of the proposal provided by Ms Liu, except it is noted that the proposal no longer seeks inclusion in the Council’s Regionwide Network Discharge Consent as the stormwater network is proposed to be private. Consequently, the application has been revised to seek consent for stormwater discharge as a Controlled Activity under Rule E8 .4. 1(A9) . Please see addendum to the AEE as Annexure 1 and updated Stormwater Implementation Plan and technical memorandum in Annexure 07 (Annexures 07A, 07D, 07E, 07F) . |\n\n\n| Item number | Comment | Applicant Response |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n|  | applicant demonstrates compliance to Schedule 4 of the NDC. Water Permit (s14 of RMA1991)\u003Cbr>• Groundwater diversion and dewatering associated with the earthworks and construction. |  |\n| 2. | Activity status and gateway test\u003Cbr>The proposed activities and activity status are explained in section 6.1 of the AEE and in the applicant’s lawyer’s cover letter. I agree that the proposal fits into an integrated residential development (IRD) definition.\u003Cbr>It is stated in paras 5.8 to 5.15 of the cover letter that the application is a discretionary activity overall for an IRD in the Single House Zone (SHZ) under H3 .4(A9), and the non-complying activity rule H3 .4(A6) associated with‘more than one dwelling per site’ does not apply to the proposal. This is because the SHZ contains a strong directive to ‘provide for’ IRDs on larger sites in SHZ under Policy H3 .3(8), and an interpretation based on rules that results in IRDs being a noncomplying activity status would be contrary to this directive policy. In addition, s10 of the Legislation Act 2019 requires the meaning of an enactment ‘to be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose’. In this case, the purpose of the district plan rule, which is the objectives and policies of the district plan, must be considered to ascertain the true meaning of the rule in the plan’s context. The applicant’s legal interpretation is backed up by several recent Court cases.\u003Cbr>In this respect, the applicant’s legal opinion has not been reviewed by council’s legal team. However, council’s leg","cbCainVolVzkxDC6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainVolVzkxDC6","pdf",2950077,"English","# Applicant Response Table - To Comments received from Auckland Council\n## Planning Report – Audrey Liu (Auckland Council)\n## Activity status and gateway test","[{\"question\":\"How do the responses address activity status and the gateway test?\",\"answer\":\"The responses explain that the proposal fits the integrated residential development definition and discuss why certain district plan rules apply, including reference to statutory interpretation of enactment purpose and the need to consider the gateway test prior to granting consent if the application is assessed as non-complying.\"}]","Applicant Response Table - To Comments received from Auckland Council | PDF",1789286511,37]