The applicant seeks retrospective consent for a canopy that has been established over the existing deck at the rear of the subject site. The canopy is considered to be a building as a result of the height above natural ground level. The building infringes the height in relation to boundary standard for the rear and southern side boundaries. The building is also located within the Waikato Riverbank and Gully Hazard Area as well as the Medium and Low Flood Hazard Areas which cover the rear portion of the subject site. The size of the canopy is 8m by 4.8m and has a curved roof, with a retractable fabric awning.

The existing deck was not required to obtain resource consent when the Building Consent was assessed; however, the deck (also a building) is also located within the Waikato Riverbank and Gully Hazard Area as well as the Medium and Low Flood Hazard Areas. For completeness the resource consent requirements for the Hazard Areas in relation to the deck will be assessed as part of this application. The deck was considered to be a Permitted Activity in terms of the other requirements of the relevant District Plans at the time being the Operative and Proposed District Plan (now Partly Operative District Plan). This will not be reassessed.

This was a Limited Notified Application.

No agreement was reached to resolve the loss of view except to consider retracting the canopy when appropriate. However, a way forward to improve the privacy matter was agreed to by a Pre-Hearing process; and the Submitters advised that they would not want to take the matter further if this could be remedied.

In principle the parties agreed that:

• A tinted glass screen of 1.95m height be erected along the southern side of the deck to provide better privacy for both the residents.
• The Applicant will provide samples of the tinted glass to show to the Submitters, so that they can mutually agree on the shade of tint. The Applicant will also find out how soon the screen can be erected and place a string at that height along that end of deck so that the effect of the screen can be visualised and discussed with the Submitters.
• When the Submitters are satisfied with the tinting, location, and timing of the screen, they will write to Council that they withdraw their submission.
• The details regarding the screening were finalised and offered to be implemented by the Applicant. Whilst this was later than originally anticipated, the Submitters were satisfied with what was proposed. A withdrawal of the submission was received. It is considered that the screening has been offered by the applicant as a form of mitigation and is now part of the proposal. This will be treated in the same way as an Augier condition of consent and is the basis for the Submitter withdrawing their submission.

The canopy and deck provides an enhancement for the amenity of the occupants of the subject site and increases the visual connection with the adjoining public open space (Waikato River). Written approval has been provided by Parks and Open Spaces unit for the infringement relating to the adjoining Natural Open Space Zone (Waikato River esplanade reserve).

Whilst the canopy will after and in some aspects reduce the visual amenity of the Submitters, there is considerable remaining open area to provide for the visual character and amenity. The potential effects are considered to be acceptable. Given the existing planting along the boundary within the site, the potential shading effect is considered to be minimal. The applicant has offered to provide screening around the end of the accessory building to improve the privacy for both the subject site and Submitters. The submitters withdrew their submission on the basis of this offered mitigation.

The rear of the site within the Waikato Riverbank and Gully Hazard Area, as well as Flood Hazard Area is significantly modified with large existing retaining walls. Confirmation has been provided that the deck and canopy are structurally sound and will not result in erosion and risk from hazards.