Before the Queenstown Lakes Disrict Council Plan Change Hearing Committee

BEFORE THE QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISRICT COUNCIL PLAN CHANGE HEARING COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of the officer’s reply in respect of submissions presented at the Frankton Flats (B) Plan Change hearing

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN REPLY BY MARION READ (PHD)

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Marion Read. I hold the qualifications of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture and Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (Hons) from Lincoln University, and Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology from the University of Otago. I am a Graduate Member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects.

1.2 I am currently employed as the Team Leader of Landscape Architecture by Lakes Environmental Limited. I have been employed in this capacity since August 2007 and was previously employed as a Landscape Architect by the same company then known as CivicCorp. I completed my studies for my BLA in 1998 and was a PhD student from 1999 until 2004 inclusive. During that time I was employed in various teaching and teaching assistant roles by Lincoln University. Subsequent to completing my Doctorate I was employed by Lincoln University as a Post-Doctoral Teaching Assistant and as a Research Assistant. I have undertaken a number of conference presentations and have a number of publications including three research monographs in association with the Agribusiness and Economics Research Centre at Lincoln University, peer reviewed papers in conference proceedings and in the journal, Landscape Research. My research perspective can be characterised as that of environmental sociology.

1.3 My main responsibilities at Lakes Environmental are to manage a team of landscape architects providing landscape assessment reports in relation to resource consent applications, primarily for the development of rural properties in the Queenstown Lakes District. The objective of these reports is to ascertain the effects of proposed development on the landscape and on amenity in terms of the District Plan. In addition to appearing in Consent hearings as an officer of the Council I have also appeared for Council as an expert witness in the Environment Court.

1.4 I was asked by Council to participate in the Frankton Flats Plan Change process at the point of assessing the submissions and further submissions on the proposed change. I did not undertake the initial landscape assessment.

2.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 I have been asked by Council to respond to landscape evidence which has been presented to this panel. This has been presented, primarily, by Mr S Brown for Shotover Park Ltd and Remarkables Park Ltd, and by Dr M Steven for Quail Rise Ltd. In addition to this I will also comment on aspects of other evidence which relate to impacts on the landscape.

2 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

3.1 I consider it necessary at the outset to state the assumptions upon which my evidence is based. There are three such assumptions:

(i) The Frankton Flats will become a part of the urban fabric of Queenstown. This process is already well on the way to happening. The Remarkables Park zone occupies approximately one hundred and fifty hectares of the southern portion of the Flats and is zoned for urban development, save approximately fifty hectares which lies within the airport’s Outer Control Boundary and which is currently zoned for recreational activities. A private plan change has been lodged with the aim of altering this zoning to allow for the development of ‘big box’ retail in this area, among changes to other parts of the Remarkables Park Structure Plan. The height poles indicating the proposed maximum height for development in Area 8 (proposed Area 5b) of the Remarkables Park Special Zone are visible from State Highway 6. Attached for your information is a copy of the proposed structure plan for the Remarkables Park Special Zone (Appendix A). To the west suburban residential development already exists. The Aquatic Centre, Events Centre and surrounding playing fields and golf course provide a recreational focus for the resident community of Queenstown. To the east the Glenda Drive Industrial zone is developing rapidly. Development has begun within the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. Consent exists for the construction of a supermarket with two floors of short term accommodation above it and underground car parking, and for a terrace of visitor accommodation units within this zone. Application has been made for consent to subdivide an area of approximately eleven hectares in the north eastern part of the Flats for industrial development. This land is partially zoned Industrial and mainly zoned Rural General. Attached for your information is a copy of the proposed subdivision plan (Appendix B).

(ii) The logical boundaries for the development of the Frankton Flats, in a landscape sense, should coincide with the natural boundaries of the landform known as the Frankton Flats. These are: The top of the terrace along the Shotover River; The foot of the slope along the north western edge of the flats; The Kawarau River to the south; Lake Wakatipu to the west.

3 (iii) The experience of entering Queenstown from the east should be of high quality as this route is widely considered to be the main entrance through which tourists, both national and international, enter Queenstown. This can best be achieved by ensuring: High quality architecture, urban and landscape design; and The maintenance of important view shafts.

4.0 PERMITTED BASELINE AND RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Current consented and existing development in the vicinity of the area subject to this proposed plan change includes the Glenda Drive industrial zone which can be seen from SH6 across open ground. As stated above, consent exists for a supermarket with two floors of accommodation above it and for a terraced row of visitor accommodation within the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. While it would seem that the future of these particular developments is uncertain construction of buildings up to nine metres in height within fifty metres of SH6 is a controlled activity within the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. A large area (approximately nineteen hectares) of the Rural General zoned land subject to this plan change is the current location of some three hundred thousand cubic metres of fill which was excavated from the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. The garden centre is located within fifty metres of SH6, as is the most northerly part of the Glenda Drive Industrial Zone and the Grant residence to the west of the site in question. Three dwellings are located within fifty metres of SH6 to its north, between the Quail Rise Special Zone and Hansens Road. In addition the Transpower substation, Delta Utilities yard and Dart Engineering are also located within fifty metres of SH6 to its north.

4.2 The permitted baseline for the Rural General portion of the Frankton Flats includes: the planting of trees of non wilding potential right up to the road boundary; agricultural and horticultural activities; fencing up to two metres in height; helicopter and plane landing and take off for agricultural purposes; and the sale of produce and handcrafts.

4.3 Lakes Environmental is currently in receipt of three applications for the subdivision of Rural General land for industrial purposes. This land is part of that which is subject to this plan change and located at its north eastern edge.

4 5.0 SHOTOVER PARK AND REMARKABLES PARK LTD

5.1 Views to the Remarkables

5.1.1 In his opening submissions to the panel Mr Green asserted that Plan Change 19 would threaten ‘iconic views’ of the Remarkables. The Oxford Compact English Dictionary1 defines ‘iconic’ as ‘of or having the nature of an image or portrait’. Thus, I consider that when we talk about iconic landscapes or iconic views of landscapes we are talking more of the significant, recognised image of a landscape rather than the landscape itself. These images are seen from a particular location and are the stuff of postcards and, more contemporarily, of web pages. They are the images that we believe most New Zealanders, if stopped in the street in any town in the country, would be able to recognise. In my opinion, using this definition, New Zealand has, arguably, four iconic landscapes. These are Rangitoto Island, as seen from Auckland City; Mount Taranaki, usually as seen from the north east or south west (the mountain is so symmetrical, apart from the second cone on the north west flank, that view point matters less in that instance); Mitre Peak viewed from the head of Milford Sound; and the Remarkables viewed from across Queenstown Bay. (There are other cityscapes which I would also consider iconic, notably views of Auckland’s Sky Tower and Harbour Bridge, but in the interest of simplicity I will focus only on the more natural landscapes.) I absolutely do not dispute that the Remarkables are an iconic landscape, and one instantly recognisable by many if not most New Zealanders. However, the instantly recognisable image which one finds in the travel brochures and on the websites is that taken from Queenstown Bay or from the Skyline Building. I cannot say definitively that there are no images in these publications taken from the Frankton Flats but I have yet to see one. It is probably not necessary to point out that PC19 will not affect the views of the Remarkables from these locations, and thus I consider that this plan change cannot be said to threaten the iconic views of the Remarkables at all. The rest of this section will focus on the evidence of Mr Brown.

5.1.2 Mr Brown focused on views to the Remarkables in paragraphs 22 to 32 of his evidence. Before discussing his evidence in detail I would like to run a brief powerpoint presentation. This presentation is not designed to be evidential in the sense of providing a factual exposé of what can be seen from various viewpoints but rather an attempt at presenting the experience of traveling along the road towards and away from Queenstown. The photographs were taken by me from the passenger seat of a Hyundai Tucson at approximately five second intervals. There are some obvious limitations to this method, not the least that I could not be described as a disinterested or naive viewer. However, I consider that I made an honest attempt to

1 Oxford Compact English Dictionary (1996) Oxford University Press: Oxford

5 avoid framing my shots simply to support my arguments. Further, the framing of the photographs removes the peripheral from the views meaning that the opportunity for glimpses of views to catch and attract the eye is limited. However, I consider that they still provide a reasonable approximation of the experience which may be useful to the commission and one which any of us can easily ground test. The images in this presentation are included as Appendix C.

5.1.3 At paragraph 20 Mr Brown stated that the Remarkables are ‘…critically exposed to State Highway 6 across the Frankton Flats…’. I consider that this overstates the significance of these views and, indeed, at paragraph 33 Mr Brown himself described the Remarkables as ‘actually much more peripheral’ in the views one has when driving towards Queenstown. A driver traveling west has little opportunity to see the Remarkables at all, and the focus is more on Walter and Cecil Peaks in the distance. Traveling east the main view of the Remarkables is actually from the BP roundabout over the Events Centre. The road swings to the north east as it leaves the roundabout and while views of the Remarkables are possible, from the perspective of a driver, more distant views of the Crown Range with Morven Hill and Bendemeer Hill in its foreground are more central.

5.1.4 At Paragraph 23 Mr Brown makes a statement of three basic principles to be maintained. These are: That it is important that ‘activities and development on the Frankton Flats doesn’t (sic) complete with the Remarkables and other key mountains / hills’; ‘That the rural (as opposed to man-made / cultural) character of the ’base plate’ for such views is conserved’; That the Flats’ landscape retains a certain coherence and consistency of character, not withstanding the change and variable development that has already occurred’.

5.1.5 I agree with Mr Brown’s first statement. However, I disagree with Mr Brown in terms of what this actually means in practice. I will discuss this further below.

5.1.6 With regard to Mr Brown’s second statement, it is my opinion the rural character of the Frankton Flats is somewhat illusory. There is development consented within the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. The largest area of land on the Flats which is actually farmed is the Remarkables Park deer farm. Apart from Area 8 of the Remarkables Park Special Zone structure plan (see Appendix D attached) all of this land is currently zoned for mixed use development and Area 8 is subject to a Private Plan Change proposal to allow for ‘big box’ retail development as discussed above. Shotover Park Ltd have applied to subdivide a substantial area of (currently) Rural

6 General zoned land for industrial development to the immediate west of Glenda Drive on land which is part of that subject to this plan change. The Rural General Land adjacent to SH6 and Grants Road is the location of some three hundred thousand cubic metres of fill which has been placed and managed in such a way as to promote the appearance of rural land. However, this is not, in reality, a rural land use. The fifty metre setback landscaped by Five Mile includes references to the rural landscape but it is not rural in character. The land to the north of SH6 retains a much more rural character despite being the location of a number of dwellings, the Transpower Substation, the Delta Utilities yard and Dart Engineering, in part because of its role as the foreground to views of the K Number 2 and Ferry Hill Outstanding Natural Landscape. Consequently I consider that the call to maintain the rural character of the Flats as a base plate for the views to the Remarkables and other surrounding mountains is, at best, too late. In my opinion the character of the Frankton Flats is best described as that of a peri-urban area in the process of radical change.

5.1.7 I agree with Mr Brown that it is desirable that the Frankton Flats landscape should have a certain coherency and consistency of character. I do not consider that it does so at present and, as stated in my opening, I consider that this character will inevitably become urban. Therefore, it is my opinion that this plan change should be used as an opportunity to ensure that the urban fabric which develops in this area is one which is coherent, legible and of high quality.

5.1.8 Mr Brown has used K2Vi to model what he considers to be the effect of the height limits proposed in the Planners Report. The series of photo simulations are based on panoramas taken at three points along SH6. It is important to note from the outset that these panoramas have been taken from the road side and from the view point of someone standing and facing, more or less, at right angles away from the road. Further, view point 1 looks out over the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. View point 3 is taken from approximately the intersection with the planned Eastern Access Road. Mr Brown’s images provide blank curtains running the entire width of both the area subject to the proposed Plan Change and the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. These curtains do not distinguish between these two areas and so fail to illustrate the situation as it is currently allowed for by the Plan and by existing consents. Further, these blank curtains fail to acknowledge that there is an existing road corridor running through this site (Grants Road) and that the site will also be bisected by other proposed road corridors including the Eastern Access Road. These roadways would provide view shafts to the Remarkables and to Ferry Hill through any development on the flats. In addition, as the intersections of both of these roads with SH6 are to be roundabouts, the views down the road corridors to the Remarkables would improve

7 the access of travelers to these views over that which is currently possible by orienting the vehicle more towards them than is currently the case. In addition Mr Brown’s simulations fail to include the proposed road along the edge of the fifty metre strip intended to ensure that development at the northern edge of the site faces toward the State Highway. Council has commissioned its own visual simulations of the site and I will discuss these later.

5.1.9 Mr Brown has used photo-simulations to illustrate that lower height limits or greater setbacks from the State Highway would increase the amount of the Remarkables which would be visible from his view points. I do not dispute the accuracy of these photo-simulations. However, I strongly dispute the desirability of either lower height limits or greater setbacks from the State Highway. I will discuss this further in the next section of my evidence when I discuss the entrance experience to Queenstown. I consider it sufficient at this point to restate that I consider that the significance of these views to the Remarkables from State Highway 6 to be overstated or, in Mr Brown’s own words, ‘peripheral’.

5.2 The Queenstown Entrance Experience

5.2.1 I fundamentally agree with Mr Brown’s description of the experience of entering Queenstown from the east, as set out in his section entitled ‘Gateway Effects’. In terms of his description of the experience of leaving Queenstown by this route I again consider his focus on views of the Remarkables to be overstated. In my opinion the Remarkables capture ones eye from the ascent along Frankton Road to the BP roundabout. SH6 swings to the north east as it passes the cemetery to the east of the roundabout and while views to the Remarkables are still possible over the Events Centre, from the perspective of a driver, more distant views of the Crown Range with Morven Hill and Bendemeer Hill in the foreground framed by Ferry Hill to the north and the northern flanks of the Remarkables are more central. Once at Grants Road, SH6 swings to the north even more further directing views to the more distant mountains and away from the Remarkables. Mr Brown concludes that the stretch of road between Five Mile and the Garden Centre and vice versa ‘acts as a very important point of transition between Queenstown’s urban area and the high country that, along with Lake Wakatipu, is its central attraction’2. I am not convinced that the concepts of ‘transition’ and ‘gateway’ are necessarily interchangeable in the way Mr Brown uses them. In my opinion the transitional experience is had when one reaches the western end of Ladies Mile and approaches the descent to the Shotover River Bridge. From this point the built form of Glenda Drive along the terrace edge and that of Quail Rise to the north are a clearly visible urban edge and an indication that one is

2 Para 34.

8 leaving the ‘countryside’ and entering a township. From within the cuttings on both sides of the river ones perspective is narrowed and this effect is continued at the end of Glenda Drive by the tall vegetation on both sides of the highway. In my opinion this is the gateway, and it is possibly even surprising that one passes through it and out into what is still a relatively open area. The township has been entered but is, somehow, missing.

5.2.2 Mr Brown quotes at some length from the ‘Queenstown Entrances’ study and the ‘Tomorrow’s Queenstown’ study, both completed in 2002. It is my understanding that neither of these documents has ever had any statutory weight and it is my opinion that they are now somewhat out of date, consented development on the Flats and the establishment of the Frankton Flats Special Zone A having post dated them. Further, while the ‘Strategic Goal: Respecting our landscape and natural environment’3 is admirable and I consider that the strategy of defining and strengthening the edges of the town by reinforcing the individual character of each entrance should continue to be a focus I consider that forming a buffer between the rural and urban landscapes is somewhat at odds with this. Gateways are points of transition, not routes of transition. That is, a gateway stands between the street and the garden; the road and the paddock. While moving through it is a transition from public to private space it is sudden, immediate and indisputable. It is not a process of moving from public to less public to partially private, to private. Neither, in my opinion is the ideal urban edge a transition from rural to partially rural to partially urban to mostly urban. In my opinion a hard edge is desirable as it increases the legibility of the town and heightens the visitor’s sense of having arrived. This already exists in the form of the development along the top of the terrace above the Shotover and in Quail Rise. The insertion of a roundabout into SH6 at its intersection with the planned eastern access road will strengthen the sense of passing through a gateway and arriving at the Queenstown urban edge.

5.2.3 Mr Brown continues to make critical comments about the fifty metre landscape strip along the southern side of SH6 and implies that it is a precursor of more planting to come. I consider that it is important to clarify both the background and the intent of this strip for the panel. The original Terrace Towers decision (C111/2000) consented the development of a supermarket on the site and required mounding be established within the fifty metre setback that would obscure views of the building and car park from a tourist coach so as to protect views to the Remarkables with a ‘rural’ foreground. In 2005 the Court released a final decision establishing the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. This was heavily influenced, I understand, by documentation provided by Morgan Pollard and Associates. The concept provided by this company

3 Tomorrow’s Queenstown cited para 36.

9 was incorporated into the Partially Operative District Plan as a part of the Structure Plan for the development of the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. I have appended this Structure Plan for your information as Appendix E. The actual landscaping which has been undertaken within the fifty metre set back has been based on this plan. The elements of the landscaping are divided into two groups. To quote from the application document for the relevant resource consent (RM060508):

The following elements are present in the landscape concept: • Natural Landscape Landform feature/schist sculpture: abstract of Roche Moutonnee Kowhai groves Ephemeral wetland plantings acting as stormwater treatment and detention areas Mass plantings of native grasses • Cultural and Amenity Landscape “Shelterbelts” – Lombardy poplar Grass Stone walls (local schist) Pedestrian and cycle path as part of the Wakatipu walkway system4

The design of the landscaping is intended to ensure ‘the integration of the Five Mile town with the surrounding landscape and the wider urban fabric of Frankton and Queenstown’5. Tree planting has been used to draw ones eye to the views, primarily of Peninsula Hill, to the south, and to indicate the location of view corridors which were to be left through the intended development to the Remarkables. These have been planted with fastigiate oaks which it was intended to use as street trees within the township. Thus those planted in the fifty metre strip were intended to continue as avenues within the development. The original application was amended to incorporate the proposed roundabout at the intersection with Grants road and the lowering of the ground level within the FFSZ(A) and I append copies of the approved landscape plans (RM060952) to this evidence (Appendix F). This landscape planting is complete as it can now be seen apart from the area into which the Grants Road roundabout is to be inserted.

5.2.4 Problematically, there is no guarantee that the current landscaping will be maintained. Indeed, it would seem possible that the entire area could be cut up into multiple lots with multiple owners, each of whom might wish to institute different treatments on their land. The only connecting theme currently required is that of S12.21.3.3(e) which requires public access to be maintained including walking and cycle ways. As a limited discretionary activity the Council would maintain some control over species,

4 Morgan Pollard and Associates Queenstown Ltd 2006, P10. 5 Ibid, P10.

10 the protection of view shafts and some other aspects of future landscaping. However, I consider that it would be best dealt with in a similar manner to the adjacent Frankton Flats Special Zone A. In that zone the landscaping of the fifty metre set back is a controlled activity but Site Standard 12.18.5.1(iii) requires that it be approved and implemented prior to any development occurring. In addition, the development of a cohesive design strategy for the entire area could be a requirement of the Outline Development Plan for area C.

5.2.5 Mr Brown used K2Vi simulations to indicate the effect on views of the Remarkables of increasing the setback to one hundred metres or alternately reducing the height restriction from nine metres at the northern edge of the site to six metres. In my opinion there are a number of arguments against increasing the setback from fifty to one hundred metres. While it would undoubtedly increase the amount of the Remarkables and Peninsula Hill that would be visible to travellers on the State Highway, I reject the idea that these views are the only (important) factor contributing to the experience of travelling through this space. In my opinion landscape architecture is not just about rural landscapes or pretty trees and other green stuff. It is quintessentially about managing people’s experience of space. This plan change is about creating a new centre of urban development. The Frankton Flats is unlikely to have more than the faintest nod towards rural character in the not too distant future and as, I have argued, this rural character is significantly diminished already. In my opinion a well designed and visually interesting urban edge is a better option than a one hundred metre setback creating a large area of open space with no obvious purpose, function or character. Further, the set back already established in the Plan for Frankton Flats Special Zone A is fifty metres. While clearly the future of the consented and proposed development on this site is currently unclear, the zoning in this area already permits development to nine metres at fifty metres from the road. To then have the set back double in size would isolate the Frankton Flats Special Zone A development both visually and spatially from development within the Frankton Flats Special Zone B. In addition there are already a considerable number of developments within the fifty metre set back on both sides of the road and on this side they include the garden centre, the glass houses and the Grant’s house on the south side of SH6. With regard to reducing the proposed height limit from nine metres my arguments are somewhat more pragmatic. A plan change is essentially about the conferring (or removing) of development rights. A higher height limit confers more development rights than a lower height limit. Consequently the increase in land value would be greater. While it is possibly a tenuous argument it is my opinion that the greater the value of the land the better the chance of getting quality architecture and the better the chance that the overall quality of development is increased. If the concern is to ensure that this area provides a high quality

11 experience to people entering Queenstown then I consider that quality architecture and quality development are necessary requirements. I shall discuss height limits further. I do consider that it is essential that a road should edge all or most of the fifty metre setback to ensure that all buildings at the northern part of the development face towards SH6.

5.3 Mr Brown’s conclusions

5.3.1 With regard to Mr Brown’s conclusions I have the following replies: I consider that the 50m set back should stand, with the proviso that for all, or most, of the length of the development a road should run along its northern side to ensure that buildings face towards SH6. The ‘buffer area’ should be retained in simple landscaping as it is currently The existing Five Mile site will be, at some point in the future, fully developed according to the rules of the Frankton Flats Special Zone A. I shall discuss potential height limits below.

6.0 QUAIL RISE LTD

6.1 Response to Dr Steven’s submissions

6.1.1 I agree with Dr Steven’s position at paragraph 21 that in failing to address the planning for the Frankton Flats landscape in an holistic and comprehensive manner, that the proposed plan change stands to create an anomalous situation with significant resource management implications for the District.

6.1.2 I would continue to dispute Dr Steven’s opinion that the quality of the landscape to the north of State Highway 6 is not as great as that of other parts of the Wakatipu Basin. However, this is essentially irrelevant. Dr Steven argues that if Plan Change 19 is successful that this land would, because of its small area, have to be considered either an ONL or urban as it fails to meet the criteria which the Court has established for a minimum size for a landscape in its own right (C73/2002). While it is definitely the case that the area is too small to be a landscape in these terms the High Court held in the Trident Case (CIV 2004-485-002426) that ‘Other rural landscape is properly understood as meaning every other landscape in the Rural General Zone which is not ONL or VAL.6’ In this case the Court ruled that the Plan requires that all Rural General Zoned land must be assessed as one of the three types of landscape before any resource consent application on that land can be considered. Consequently, should this plan change be successful, there would be no option but to

6 CIV 2004-485-002426, Para 26.

12 classify this land as an Other Rural Landscape. This is why the future zoning of this land is critical. To quote from my report to Council on the submissions:

The proposed Frankton Flats Plan Change would result in the isolation of this Rural General Zoned land from the rest of the landscape of which it is part. That is, while the Rural General land continues up and over K Number 2, Ferry Hill and Queenstown Hill, it could not be argued that this strip is a part of that Outstanding Natural Landscape. Consequently this critically important part of the Queenstown entrance experience would be left classified as Other Rural Landscape. In my opinion this, plus the fact that the area is subject to nine different owners, leaves it extremely vulnerable to subdivision and development in an ad hoc manner. While it is entirely reasonable to expect that this land will be subject to development in the future and that it is likely, and appropriate, that it will become a part of the urban fabric of Queenstown, I consider it critical that this development is planned for, and not left to a series of unrelated and unconnected Resource Consent applications.

6.2.1 Quail Rise Ltd proposes that the land to the north of State Highway 6 extending from within the Quail Rise zone to the Transpower Substation designation should be included within the Frankton Flats Plan Change. To this end they propose that the land under the already existing fifty metre setback be classified as Activity Area A, the rest of the area to be classified as Activity Area B. While I appreciate that there may be procedural and other issues involved in the consideration of this submission I have to say that I consider that this proposal has, in my opinion, some merit. It is my opinion, as stated above, that I consider that this land must be rezoned as a matter of urgency in order to ensure its comprehensive development whilst maintaining the views to the northern hills and protecting the quality of the entrance to Queenstown. However, it remains the case that this land is divorced from the land which is the subject of this plan change, by the State Highway and, if the submission is accepted and the plan change successful, development on that land would be separated from that on the south side of the highway by that road corridor and one hundred metres of landscaping. This separation would, in my opinion, tend to make development in the area more an extension of Quail Rise than the Frankton Flats Special Zone and I think that very careful consideration would need to be made to ensure that the rules which have been devised for development on the south side of the highway are appropriate for development on the north side.

6.2.2 It is also my opinion that the area to the north of the State Highway which should be rezoned should extend all the way to Hansens Road. While this rezoning would be interrupted by the Transpower Substation (as I understand it is usual to retain a Rural General zoning on designated land) to fail to rezone the intervening land between that site and Hansens Road would leave an anomalous area of Rural General land which would, again, be unable to be assessed as anything other than Other Rural

13 Landscape leaving it vulnerable to development by a series of unconnected resource consent applications. I am aware that Delta Utilities has requested that their site be included in the plan change and be rezoned subzone D. In my opinion, as the site will inevitably (along with the substation and Dart Engineering) be surrounded by reasonably dense development including residential development that industrial zoning of this site would be completely inappropriate.

6.2.3 Mr Ibbotson, counsel for Quail Rise provided three maps to the panel. The first of these is entitled ‘Plan Showing Proposed Activity Areas & ONL Line’, the second is entitled Plan Showing Proposed Activity Areas & ONL Line Slope Analysis’. I am in agreement with the extent of Activity Area A as indicated on these maps. While I consider that the rezoning of the northern edge of the Frankton Flats should extend to Hansens Road, I do not consider that Activity Area A should extend any further than the Transpower site. This is mainly a pragmatic consideration. Development already exists within the fifty metre set back in this vicinity and it would seem unreasonable to hamper these activities in this manner, much as with the Manapouri Beech site on the other side of the highway. Also, the toe of the slope protrudes to within thirty metres of the road corridor at the Delta Utilities site. The outer boundary of the proposed Activity Area B has been largely determined by the necessity to maintain a fifty metre offset from the transmission lines which run across the toe of the slope. Subsequently the proposed boundary crosses the ‘landscape line’ delineating the boundary of the Outstanding Natural Landscape (Wakatipu Basin) in two main areas. These are to the north of the intended intersection of SH6 and the Eastern Access Road and to the north west of the Thompson’s land. Both these areas are elevated, as can be seen by the Slope Analysis map. It is my opinion that it is important to keep the sort of development proposed off the slopes and out of this Outstanding Natural Landscape. This is illustrated in Appendix G attached. Consequently I consider that the boundary of Activity Area B should be located fifty metres from the transmission lines and to the south of the ‘landscape line’ if the Commissioners were of a mind to rezone the land to the northern side of the State Highway.

7.0 LAKES LEISURE

7.1 The evidence provided by Lakes Leisure raises concerns about the interface between the western edge of Activity Area D and their property which is separated from the proposed zone by the realigned Grants Road. Their desired solution is the inclusion of a zone standard requiring that there should be a 10m setback from the eastern boundary of the new spine road (Grants Road) and that this should be landscaped.

14 7.1.1 I generally sympathise with both the issue and the intent of the proposed amendment to the Zone Standards. However, I am sceptical as to the likely effectiveness of the rule as proposed. It is my opinion that it would be desirable for this area of landscaping to be consistent along its entire length, rather than be allowed to vary on a site by site basis. Further, I consider that clear objectives should be included in order to provide landowners with a clear indication of the Council’s expectations and to provide a means of assessing adequate compliance. It is my opinion that this could be best achieved by requiring the inclusion of landscape design guidelines for this area in the Outline Development Plan for the area. Thus I suggest the following:

That 12.19.3.3(ii) be amended to include: (?) Landscape design guidelines which will apply to the 10m landscape set back in Activity Area D abutting Grants Road to enable a consistent landscape treatment along this green edge;

That the rule proposed by Lakes Leisure at Paragraph 5.13 be amended as follows: (ii) There shall be a 10m building setback from the eastern boundary of the new spine road within Activity Area D. This 10m setback shall be landscaped in accordance with the design guidelines approved under the Outline Development Plan.

8.0 OTHER ISSUES

8.1 I have examined the Truescape images which have been commissioned by Council and which are appended to Mr Karlovsky’s evidence. I have also read Mr Karlovsky’s draft evidence and accept his concern to ensure that height limits should enable coherent design while ensuring variable roof lines allowing as a rule of thumb slightly more than three metres per story (thus requiring 9.5 to 11m to allow for three story buildings).

8.2 I am concerned that the driver for lower, rather than possibly higher height limits to accommodate three stories and greater setbacks from the state highway is the desire to protect views of the Remarkables from the state highway. I wish to reiterate that I consider that the importance of these views has been greatly overstated. Further, I wish to reiterate that I consider that the creation of a vibrant, urban experience along this entrance to Queenstown should be the priority.

8.3 By my own calculations illustrated by the inclusion of Appendix H, increasing the height limit at 65m from the edge of State Highway 6 to 11m would result in a minimal increase in the amount of the Remarkables which would be hidden over Mr Brown’s

15 simulation of 9m at 50m. However, it would increase development rights improving the chances of quality development and thus increase the possibility of an interesting urban edge.

8.4 It is also clear to me from the simulations of Mr Karlovsky’s Scenario 1 that little would be gained by reducing the height limit to between 6.5 and 8m at 65m from the State Highway in terms of increasing the view as it simply means that more of the taller buildings behind are visible.

8.5 It is possible that the two areas in which it is proposed to increase the set back to 100m in Scenario 2 could become interesting areas with residences and businesses opening onto them. However, their being open to the State Highway to the north would likely remain problematic and some form of enclosure for shelter from wind and from the noise of the state highway would be likely even at that distance from it. This would not necessarily be problematic but it is likely to include at least some trees which could obscure more of the Remarkables when mature than built form would anyway. (The Lombardy poplars and fastigiate oaks currently planted along the landscape strip will both grow to 20m or more in height). Again, it would not appreciably increase the amount of the Remarkables which is available for viewing.

8.6 Other options have been mooted during the hearing for the interface between the development within the zone and the fifty metre setback. These have included imposing a one hundred metre setback on the entire frontage of the area in consideration for the plan change. My concern regarding such a large setback would be that it would create a considerable amount of open space which would have little character of its own in an area where there are extensive playing fields already. The suggestion has been made that a school on the northern edge of the site would enable this sort of set back, but I have a strong concern that any school would wish to prevent pupils from direct access to SH6 probably resulting in fences along the northern boundary and a complex fronting onto a southern boundary. This scenario would be unlikely to provide the vibrant urban edge which I consider is important for the area.

8.7 Variable roof heights would certainly ensure a more interesting and varied built form than is possible with a blanket height limit, but my concern about lower height planes leading to lower land values and lower quality architecture stand. I consider that it is important that the height limits imposed for area C1 are similar to those within the Frankton Flats Special Zone A, otherwise development to the west of Grants Road will differ significantly from development to the east. I understand that a nine metre height plane is problematic in that it is not high enough to allow for three stories and

16 that it is this which has resulted in the ‘hole within a hole’ within Frankton Flats Special Zone A. I consider that a further option would be that the height plane along the edge of the sixty five metre setback should be variable allowing for some development to eleven metres, the height above ground level which I understand is necessary to allow for three stories, in a percentage of the frontage, and a lesser height which would allow for two stories for a further percentage. This compromise could provide an interesting urban edge, reasonably high development potential, and allow for the protection of view shafts.