BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

SUBMITTER Waitakere Ranges Protection Society

SUBMISSIONS FS3147

TOPIC 016 – Changes to the RUB (North/West)

EVIDENCE Rebuttal

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JAMES RONALD HOOK

Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Summary of Evidence i. The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society (FS3147) has specific interest is management, use and development of land in the Waitakere Ranges, in particular land within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WHRA) that is subject to the specific provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (WRHAA). ii. In addition to Part 2 and other statutory and policy considerations the Auckland Council to give effect to the purpose of the WRHAA and its objectives through the PAUP (WRHAA ss.10-11). iii. This planning evidence relates to all fifteen submissions that request an extension of the RUB to include areas of land currently within the WRHAA, and in particular eight requests that have been supported in evidence by five submitters including:

 Ali Sheer (5265-1).  CDL Land New Zealand Limited (3159)

 Oratia Foothills Limited (5264-1)  The Henderson Valley Edge Group (5877-1, 5877-2) and Ljubo and Lucija Tvrdeich (363-2)

 Urban Design Forum (5277-358, 359, 360), NZ Institute of Architects, (5280- 362) iv. In respect of the 15 requests for an extension of the RUB into the WRHA, my assessment and view is that only one of those requests satisfies the relevant matters to be given effect to/had regard to, is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies and is consistent with Part 2 of the Act. v. In my assessment, the property at 21-123 Parrs Cross Road therefore warrants inclusion within the RUB. vi. However, my assessment and conclusion in respect of the other 14 requests is that they should be rejected as the requested extension to the RUB would be contrary to Part 2 of the Act, the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, the RPS objectives and policies relating to the Waitakere Ranges (B 4.3.5), contrary to the objectives and policies in proposed Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay, and contrary to the IHP’s guidance on changes to the RUB, in particular matters 3.4 a. and b.

Page 1 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Introduction

1. This statement has been prepared by James Ronald Hook (Planning Consultant) in relation to primary submission by the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society (FS3147), whose specific interest is management, use and development of land in the Waitakere Ranges, in particular land within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WHRA).

2. The WHRA is subject to the specific provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (WRHAA), which:

a) Establishes the WRHA as an area of national significance, and defines the heritage features that individually or collectively contribute to its significance (WRHAA s.7)

b) Sets specific objectives for the WHRA (WRHAA s.8 – refer to Attachment 1)

c) Requires Auckland Council to give effect to the purpose of the WRHAA and its objectives through its Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plan and District Plan provisions (WRHAA ss.10-11).

3. In preparing this statement I have reviewed the following evidence prepared by Auckland Council on Topic 016/07 and that of the other submitters whose evidence I address below:

 Evidence of Chloe Trenouth for Auckland Council, 14 October 2015  Evidence of David Hookway, Ryan Bradley and Eryn Shields, 15 October 2015.

 Joint statement of evidence of Mr Theunis Schalkwyk, Mr Evan Keating, Mr Alastair Lovell and Mr Scott MacArthur (Auckland Transport), 14 October 2015

 Joint statement of evidence of David Blow, Chris Allen and Andre Stuart (Watercare), 14 October 2015  Evidence of Kim Aukett (for Ali Sheer), November 2015

 Evidence of Jessica Parulian (for Oratia Foothills Limited), November 2015  Evidence of Philip Brown (for CDL Land NZ), 15 November 2015  Evidence of John Childs (for CDL Land NZ), 16 November 2015

 Evidence of Dennis Scott (for CDL Land NZ), 16 November 2015  Rebuttal Evidence of Evidence of Ivan Tvrdeich, 16 November 2015  Evidence of Bruce McKenzie for the New Zealand Institute of Architects and Urban Design Forum, 16 November 2015

Page 2 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

4. This evidence relates to all fifteen submissions that request an extension of the RUB to include areas of land currently within the WRHAA1. All submissions are addressed at a general level, followed by specific discussion of each RUB request that is supported by evidence under Topic 016. I further note that the rezoning of these (and other) areas of land will be considered in evidence to be prepared and filed under Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts.

5. A statement of my qualifications and 21 years’ experience as a Planner has been provided to the Panel under previous statements of evidence in relation to previous Topics. In respect of the Waitakere Ranges area, I have been involved in planning matters affecting this area on a regular, and almost continuous, basis since 1997 (commencing with hearings on the proposed Waitakere District Plan).

6. I have prepared this statement in accordance with section 7.1 of the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014 and have considered and referred to all material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed here.

Relevance of WRHAA to the RUB

7. The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society (FS3147) has a long standing interest and has maintained direct involvement in plan making and resource consent processes relating to management, use and development of land in the WHRA. The pressures for additional subdivision and development within the WHRA are most prevalent within the eastern Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges, which extend down from the Regional Parkland to the established urban areas of the (former Waitakere) city. There is generally dispersed Rural-residential settlement within the Foothills, however it retains a low density rural character which has enabled its distinct character and amenity values to be retained.

8. The WRHAA2 includes the following description of heritage features within the Foothills heritage area:

(h) the eastern foothills, which— (i) act as a buffer between metropolitan Auckland and the forested ranges and coasts; and (ii) provide a transition from metropolitan Auckland to the forested ranges and coast: (i) the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape, which is reflected in— (i) …

1 Refer to paragraph 10.8 and Figure 23 of the Evidence of David Hookway, Ryan Bradley Eryn Shields for Auckland Council dated 15 October 2015 2 Section 7(2), Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

Page 3 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

(ii) the distinctive harmony, pleasantness, and coherence of the low-density residential and urban areas that are located in regenerating (and increasingly dominant) forest settings; and (iii) the rural character of the foothills to the east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland, orchards, vineyards, uncultivated areas, indigenous vegetation, and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities:

9. The Heritage area objectives3 include specific objectives that require avoidance of adverse potential effects on the area’s environmental and heritage features (including cumulative adverse effects). In terms of future subdivision and development in the WRHA, the following two Heritage area objectives are most relevant:

(e) to recognise that, in protecting the heritage features, the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision: (f) to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area, of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect,— (i) is of an appropriate character, scale, and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:

10. The Regional Objectives and Policies in section B.4.3.54 establish and provide clear guidance in respect of features and values of the WRHA. Consistent with the WRHAA the objectives seek to provide for rural land uses that retain a rural character and to enable people to live and work in the area to provide for their social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. However, due to the cumulative adverse effects of subdivision on heritage features, rural character, amenity standards and environmental quality of the WRHA, the limited capacity of the area to absorb further subdivision is specifically recognised in Objectives 3, 4, 5 and 9 as follows:

3. Recognise the limited capacity of the area to absorb further subdivision.

4. Cumulative adverse effects on the area’s environment or its heritage features are recognised, and avoided where practicable, or otherwise remedied or mitigated.

5. The character, scale and intensity of subdivision, use or development does not adversely affect the area’s environment, heritage features or contribute to urban growth outside the RUB.

9. Maintain the landscapes of the foothills by:

3 Section 8, Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 4 Auckland Council - track changes version 23.12.14

Page 4 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

a. encouraging rural land uses or activities that have a connection to the area’s productive past

b. requiring new activities and development to be designed in a way which protects the area’s rural character

c. ensuring that subdivision and development retains a clear visual boundary and contrast between metropolitan Auckland and the foothills.

11. Council’s Closing Submissions in relation to the District Plan level provision of the Waitakere Ranges – proposed a new Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay with a set of specific objectives and policies5 including objectives 5 and 6:

5. The limited capacity of the heritage area to absorb further subdivision is recognised.

6. Subdivision and / or development is of an appropriate character, scale and intensity that does not by itself, or cumulatively, adversely affect the heritage features and adverse effects are, as far as reasonably practicable, avoided remedied or mitigated.

12. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay also includes the following policies:

2. Manage the scale design, location and effects of subdivision and / or development so that they are to be consistent with the objectives of the WRHAA.

3. Limit subdivision and / or development which will have cumulative adverse effects on the heritage features of the heritage area.

13. In respect of these Objectives and Policies, it is my view that the limitation on the areas’ capacity to absorb further subdivision applies equally to three common scenarios:

a) Further dispersed subdivision within the Foothills i.e. lowering the minimum site are below 4ha generally or providing for further subdivision in either the Oratia or Swanson Precinct Plan (former Structure Plan) areas; and

b) Creation of new, or extension of existing, residential enclaves within the WRHA – such as the historic subdivisions in Henderson Valley; and

c) Extension of the urban subdivision pattern into the lower Foothills (adjacent to established urban areas).

5 WRHA Overlay – Topic 075 Closing Statement, 25 November 2015

Page 5 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

14. My rationale for the first two scenarios is self-evident, given the clearly expressed landscape, ecological and rural character values of the Waitakere Ranges Foothills and sensitivity of heritage features within those areas to further cumulative change – that would erode and ultimately destroy the features and values associated with those areas.

15. In respect of the third scenario it is my view that the established urban edge is already at its limits in terms of the encroachment of urban development into the Waitakere Foothills and that any further extension into the WRHA beyond the notified location of the RUB under the PAUP (which coincides with the longstanding Metropolitan Urban Limits or MUL) would adversely affect the integrity and heritage values of that area.

16. In my view any such extension would fail to give effect to the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, in particular those quoted above, and would be contrary to Objectives 3, 4, 5 and 9 that are likely to be included within the RPS section of the PAUP.

Interim Guidance

17. The Panel has provided Best Practice Guidance on approaches to rezoning, precincts and changes to the Rural Urban Boundary (on 31 July 2015) as follows:

3.1 The change enables the efficient provision of development capacity and land supply for residential, commercial and industrial growth.

3.2 The change promotes the achievement of a quality compact urban form.

3.3 Where moving the RUB results in rezoning, the provision of infrastructure is feasible.

3.4 The change avoids:

a. scheduled areas with significant environmental, heritage, Maori, natural character or landscape values;

b. the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Protection Area

c. mineral resources that are commercially viable;

d. elite soils

3.5 The change avoids, where possible:

a. areas prone to natural hazards, including coastal hazards;

b. conflicts between residents and infrastructure

3.6 The RUB should aim to follow property boundaries.

Page 6 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

18. For the three scenarios outlined above, an applicant is likely to be able to demonstrate by analysis and/or expert evidence that matters 3.1 to 3.3 and matters 3.5 and 3.6 are met for individual proposals in the WRHA for:

 further dispersed subdivision;

 the creation of new, or extension of existing, residential enclaves;

 an extension of the urban subdivision pattern into the lower Foothills.

19. However, each of those scenarios will not “avoid” the matters identified in 3.4 a. and b. Such subdivision within the WRHA would conflict with 3.4 b. and likely also extent onto or towards areas of significant natural character and landscape values in the WRHA. I consider that matter 3.4 b. is a critical consideration, reinforced by use of “avoid”. Avoidance of subdivision in the WRHA is a method that is necessary to give effect to the objectives of the WRHAA i.e. to:

 avoid cumulative adverse effects on the heritage features of the heritage area; and

 protect the heritage features, recognising that the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision.

RUB Extension Requests

20. In reliance on the evidence of Auckland Council there are fifteen submissions that request an extension of the RUB to include areas of land currently within the WRHAA6. WRPS has filed further submissions in opposition to the majority of those requests. Enabling extensions to the RUB within the WHRAA would be contrary to the notified PAUP provisions for the Waitakere Ranges (as supported by WRPS’ primary submission).

21. The following submitters have filed evidence in support of extensions of the RUB into the WRHA:

- Ali Sheer (5265-1) in respect of 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley.

- CDL Land New Zealand Limited (3159) in respect of 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson.

- Oratia Foothills Limited (5264-1) in respect of 121-123 Parrs Cross Road, Glen Eden.

6 Refer to paragraph 10.8 and Figure 23 of the Evidence of David Hookway, Ryan Bradley Eryn Shields for Auckland Council dated 15 October 2015

Page 7 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

- The Henderson Valley Edge Group (5877-1, 5877-2) and Ljubo and Lucija Tvrdeich (363-2) in respect of land at 1/232, 236, 240A, 248, 266, 270 and 290 Henderson Valley Road and 83-105 and 107 Forest Hill Road, Henderson.

- Urban Design Forum (5277-358, 359, 360), NZ Institute of Architects, (5280- 362) in respect of land:

 close to the Swanson Railway Station (including lower Tram Valley Road); and

 to the east of the Candia Road Ridgeline; and

 near the intersection of Pine Avenue and Parrs Cross Road.

22. I will now address each of these requests for an extension of the RUB into the WRHA that are supported by evidence under Topic 016 (noting that similar issues may also be raised by other submitters under Topic 081 and will be addressed in greater detail by evidence under that topic).

Ali Sheer

23. The planning evidence of Kim Aukett supports the submission by Ali Sheer (5265-1) for 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley. The development concept for that site is a 38 unit housing development. An extension of the RUB (followed by a new sub-precinct) are sought by the submitter to facilitate that development.

24. The site is located on Simpson Road, approximately 60m south of its intersection with Lake Panorama Drive and is adjoined on two sites by suburban housing development (part of the Lake Panorama Subdivision). The land has moderately steep contour and slopes in an easterly direction, due to its location in the eastern side of the Simpson Road ridgeline. Visually, it is therefore part of the broader urban catchment and forms the western border of an area known as Western Heights that is accessed from Henderson via Sturges Road.

25. Simpson Road forms an intermediate ridgeline when viewed from the urban areas of Sturges Road/Western Heights with the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park further in the background. The largely undeveloped and well vegetated ridgeline provides a clear visual transition between the urban area, and the rural areas of Swanson where rural activities with low-density residential (a 3-4ha average lot size) prevail.

Page 8 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of 112 Simpson Road (Source Auckland Council GIS)

26. The property at 112 Simpson Road, is the first on a row of 6 rural properties along the eastern and south eastern side of the Simpson Road ridgeline that have broadly similar orientation and landform. In terms of whether inclusion of the subject property would create a defensible boundary to the RUB, it is my view that the subject property is not readily distinguishable from these adjacent properties and that any shift of the RUB would also need to consider the merits of adjacent land in order to define a logical limit to the urban edge and to form a new defensible boundary.

27. In my view the correct outcome was achieved when that analysis was last undertaken, and the current limit of the urban area as identified by the operative MUL and proposed RUB is located in the correct position. An extension of the RUB to any or all of the ridgeline properties would have three significant adverse consequences:

a) The clear visual break between the suburban area of Western Heights and that natural landform of the Waitakere Ranges would be lost; and

b) The defensibility of the RUB boundary in this area would be compromised, and it would increase pressure to extend urban activities into the Candia Road Valley system, thus reducing the low density buffer of the Foothills from the Waitakere Ranges; and

Page 9 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

c) The further extension of urban activities into the Waitakere Ranges Foothills would result in a further and cumulative loss of rural character within that area and would diminish the rural buffer between the urban parts of the City and the sensitive landscapes and ecology of the Waitakere Ranges.

28. In respect of the policy effects of such an extension, I have summarised the relevant statutory provisions and objectives and policies above. It is clear in my view that an extension of the RUB to include the property at 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley would be contrary to Part 2 of the Act, the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, the RPS objectives and policies relating to the Waitakere Ranges (B 4.3.5), proposed Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay and the IHP’s guidance on changes to the RUB, in particular matters 3.4 a. and b. Consequently, on both an effects and policy basis, I consider that the most appropriate outcome is that 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley should not be included within the RUB.

CDL Land New Zealand Limited

29. CDL Land New Zealand Limited (3159) has made submissions in respect of 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson (CDL). The subject site of 6.79ha in area is located between 200m and 500m from the Swanson Railway Station and is occupied by a single dwelling. The site has moderate slope generally in a northerly direction and is predominantly in pasture. It is generally triangular in form and is bordered by Tram Valley Road (to the northwest) and Christian Road (to the northeast).

30. The subject land is located close urban to amenities, retail, commercial and industrial areas, schools and public open space. From a topographical and locational perspective, the land is not constrained. I accept the CDL evidence that the land is able to be serviced by an extension of local network infrastructure.

31. However, while the land is close to the Swanson Railway Station it has rural character and is currently outside the limits of the urban area at the western end of Swanson. More significantly, in a landscape sense the site forms an integral part of the rural Foothills landscape and maintains significant landscape values in that context.

32. When turning onto Christian Road (from Swanson) the site provides view across an open pastoral landform in the foreground of view to the Waitakere Ranges. The site provides a clear visual connection with the Ranges, and clearly signals to the viewer that they have moved beyond urban Auckland, and are entering a rural area.

Page 10 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Figure 2: View from lower Christian Road (adjacent to rail crossing) Source: Auckland Council GIS

33. In my view the subject land is a “gateway” site to the Waitakere Ranges. The site itself sits as an open area of pasture within the visual foreground to the bush clad slopes of the Waitakere Ranges, and is integral to that view. When travelling from the urban parts of Swanson there is currently a clear transition from Urban to Rural in both a visual and landform sense. That transition is significant, as the character of this rural site is substantially different from that of urban residential development. The site represents the first point where natural character starts to dominate urban development, and where the Waitakere Ranges and Foothills landform becomes visible and the prevailing landscape feature.

34. I was involved in the Swanson Structure Plan process7, which considered extensive and detailed landscape and planning evidence in 2005 and 2007. The Environment Court described the lower Tram Valley Road area as the start of the rural area and part of a “true green belt” around the western and northern sides of Swanson (including 780 Swanson Road and the Redwood Park golf course).8 The Court discusses two potential options for the lower Tram Valley Road area, including 7-11 Christian Road, that it is either retained as a pastoral green belt or developed more intensively for urban living (the second option being a matter the Court had no jurisdiction to determine at that time). Accordingly, it provided the site with no subdivision allocation.

35. In my view the site maintains and provides a clear landscape demarcation between urban and rural, and a strong visual connection to the Waitakere Ranges. Those values are have been maintained notwithstanding that the Penihana land located on the eastern side of Christian Road has been urbanised over the last 2-3 years. In my view the site is distinguishable from Penihana, which is located in a visually confined and physically contained landform, whereas 7-11 Christian Road is clearly connected to and an integral part of the lower Waitakere Ranges. In my view the connection of the property to the

7 As planning advisor to and expert witness for Preserve Swanson Foothills Association Incorporated. 8 [2009] ENVC 8 – paragraphs 552-561

Page 11 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Foothills landscape and Waitakere Ranges landform are significant distinguishing factors for this property that make it more significant in a landscape and planning context.

36. The submission of CDL is supported by evidence from inter alia Messrs Philip Brown, John Childs and Dennis Scott. The evidence they provide expands on the relief sought under the CDL submission, which seeks:

 Inclusion of 7-11 Christian Road within the RUB;

 Application of a Single House zoning;

 Provision for a sub-precinct for the site, providing for graduated development from 600m² lot sizes at the northern end to 2000m² lot sizes along the southern boundary.

37. In respect of the development concept for the CDL land, I accept that development of the land would have a range of positive effects – particularly the provision of housing on north facing land in close proximity to the Swanson Railway Station. However, a comprehensive analysis of the proposal is required to determine whether such an outcome represents the most appropriate outcome in terms of the various statutory and non-statutory considerations. For the reasons set out below, it is my view, following careful consideration, that such an outcome is not the most appropriate and that the land should remain rural.

38. Notwithstanding that view, should the IHP determine that inclusion of the land within the RUB is the most appropriate outcome, then it is my view that the sub- precinct provisions put forward by CDL would achieve a reasonable and balanced outcome in respect of the development of that land. The provisions provide for graduated intensity across the site and also incorporate environmental and landscape management methods that I consider would be essential to ensure that the adverse effects of development on the site are mitigated.

39. The planning evidence of John Childs extensively traverses all relevant statutory and non-statutory provisions, including the objectives of the WRHAA and the interim guidance from the IHP. His analysis is both detailed and relevant, however I reach different conclusions on the following matters, which in my view are critical to the decision on whether to include this site within the RUB.

- The landscape significance of the site, and its contribution not only to rural character locally – but as a gateway site to the Waitakere Ranges

- The direct loss or rural character and cumulative effects on landscape and rural character that would arise from subdivision and development of the site.

Page 12 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

- The defensibility of the southern boundary of the site (as a RUB boundary), urban sprawl into and along Tram Valley Road, i.e. 20-24 Tram Valley Road where additional subdivision has also been requested.

40. The main point made by Philip Brown is that the land is contiguous with the RUB, it is close to public transport (Swanson Railway Station) and that is it able to be served by necessary public infrastructure. I concur with those points, but reach a different conclusion on both effects and policy considerations to Mr Brown (as set out below).

Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson

(Source Auckland Council GIS)

41. The landscape evidence of Dennis Scott provides a comprehensive assessment of the site and its context. I agree with most of his evidence, but disagree on the following key point. He considers9 that:

9 Evidence of Dennis Scott for CDL Land NZ Ltd, paragraph 9(iv).

Page 13 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

The CDL property can be seen as forming a peripheral part of the neighbouring urban activities to the west and north rather than simply being seen as a separate and exclusively rural area.

42. In contrast - I consider that the site, which is separated by Christian Road from the recently developed Penihana land, sits in a separate and discrete landform as it comprises the toe of the Christian Road spur, and is contained between Tram Valley Road (to the west), Christian Road (to the east) and the railway corridor to the north and west. It is therefore physically separated from the adjoining land and from Swanson by these features.

43. The evidence by Messrs Childs and Scott endeavours to connect the site with Swanson and with the adjacent Penihana land. When considering the potential effects of urbanising the land they take a confined “effects-based” view that the use and development of the land for urban purposes would not be adverse within its immediate local context. As has long been the case when individual sites are considered in isolation from the broader context, such an assessment does not enable consideration of cumulative adverse effects of further urban development in the Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

44. I have also considered whether the possible inclusion of the property at 7-11 Christian Road within the RUB would clearly define and maintain a defensible limit to the urban edge and a clear separation between urban and rural land. In particular, whether its inclusion in the RUB would provide catalyst for further urban extension into the Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

45. Following consideration of the CDL evidence, and in respect of my own analysis above, I consider that the subject land should not be included within the RUB (to be followed by a Residential zoning) for the following reasons:

a) The subject land has a distinctive rural character, and is located in a visually prominent gateway location to the Waitakere Ranges Foothills;

b) The existing pastoral land use provides a clear delineation between the established urban area of Swanson (including Penihana) and the Foothills; and

c) The land is an integral part of the broader Foothills landscape and landform and is highly visible within that landscape context from public viewpoints; and

d) The land has does not have geophysical features that isolate it from the broader rural area of the Foothills and that would form a defensible boundary to the RUB and provide a defined limit to the City’s urban area; and

Page 14 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

e) The requested extension of the RUB into the Waitakere Ranges Foothills would result a cumulative loss of rural character within that area; and

f) The extension of the RUB onto the site would remove an existing rural buffer between the urban parts of the City and the sensitive landscapes and ecology of the Waitakere Ranges; and

g) Inclusion of the site within the RUB, would likely lead to further pressure for subdivision along Tram Valley Road (in particular) as the principles and basis for rejecting more intensive subdivision in that locality strongly rely on its existing physical separation from Swanson. Urban residential development at 7-11 Christian Road would support the rationale for extending urban activity into and along Tram Valley Road – thus contributing to urban sprawl and a cumulative loss of rural character and landscape values.

h) In respect of the policy effects of such an extension, due to the above reasons I consider that an extension of the RUB to include 7-11 Christian Road would be contrary to:

a) The sustainable management purpose Part 2 of the Act, in particular sections 2(c), 6(b), 7(c) and 7(d ;

b) The purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, in particular objective (f) by generating adverse cumulative effects on the heritage features of the heritage area;

c) The RPS objectives and policies relating to the Waitakere Ranges (B 4.3.5), in particular objectives 4, 5 and 9 due to a low of rural character and by eliminating the existing clear visual boundary between the urban area a Foothills;

d) Proposed Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay, due to the adverse cumulative effects of urban development of the land being inconsistent with the objectives of the WRHAA; and

e) The IHP’s interim guidance on changes to the RUB, in particular matters 3.4 a. and b. which seek to avoid extending the RUB into areas with significant natural character and landscape values and into the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.

i) Inclusion of the land within the RUB, thereby enabling future subdivision, would in my view be contrary to the objectives in section 8 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (WRHAA) 2008, in particular those that seek to protect its heritage features, recognise the limited capacity for subdivision, prevent adverse cumulative effects, ensure that activities are of an

Page 15 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

appropriate scale and intensity, and maintain the quality and diversity of landscapes. Consequently, on both an effects and policy basis for the reasons set out above, I consider that the most appropriate outcome is that 7-11 Christian Road retained as low density Countryside Living.

Oratia Foothills Limited

46. The planning evidence of Jessica Parulian relates to the submission by Oratia Foothills Limited (5264-1) in respect of 121-123 Parrs Cross Road, Glen Eden. The submission seeks an extension of the RUB (followed by a new sub-precinct or Single House zone) to facilitate development of up to 30 Units.

47. The property is a 1.67ha area of rural residential land that is located on the western side of an area of established residential housing on a west facing slope above the Oratia Stream corridor. It is a rear site with established shelter belts, but no significant native vegetation.

Figure 4: Aerial Photograph of 121-123 Parrs Cross Road (Source Auckland Council GIS)

48. The subject land is located approximately 2km from Glen Eden town centre and has ready access to urban amenities, retail, commercial and industrial areas, schools and public open space. From a topographical and locational perspective,

Page 16 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

the land is not constrained. The width of access available to the site may however constrain its development potential.

49. While the land adjoins the urban extent of Glen Eden, it maintains a Rural Character. In particular, the land is in pasture with shelterbelts. It does not however form an integral part of the rural Foothills landscape (when viewed from any public place) or landform. In effect, it is “tucked in behind” the existing housing in this location. In my view this disconnection from the broader Foothills landscape and landform is a significant distinguishing factor for this property.

50. When the potential effects of urbanising the land are considered at a site and local level, an “effects-based” view could be formed that use and development of the land for urban purposes would not be adverse. When individual sites are considered in isolation from the broader context, such an assessment does not enable consideration of cumulative adverse effects of further urban development in the Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

51. I have considered whether the possible inclusion of the property at 121-123 Parrs Cross Road, Glen Eden within the RUB would clearly define and maintain a defensible limit to the urban edge and establish a clear separation between urban and rural land. In particular, whether its inclusion in the RUB would provide catalyst for further urban extension into the Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

52. Following consideration of the evidence of Jessica Parulian, and in respect of my own analysis above, I consider that the subject land could be considered favourably for inclusion into the RUB (to be followed by a Residential zoning) for the following reasons:

a) The subject land has a rural character, but is located in a visually discrete location contiguous with established urban activities; and

b) The land is physically disconnected from the broader Foothills landscape and landform and is not visible within that landscape context from public viewpoints; and

c) The land has geophysical features that isolate it from the broader rural area of the Foothills and that would form a defensible boundary to the RUB and provide a defined limit to the City’s urban area; and

d) This minor extension into the Waitakere Ranges Foothills would therefore not result a cumulative loss of rural character within that area and maintain the integrity of the rural buffer between the urban parts of the City and the sensitive landscapes and ecology of the Waitakere Ranges.

53. In respect of the policy effects of such an extension, due to the above reasons I consider that an extension of the RUB to include 121-123 Parrs Cross Road

Page 17 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

would not be contrary to Part 2 of the Act, the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, the RPS objectives and policies relating to the Waitakere Ranges (B 4.3.5), proposed Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay and the IHP’s guidance on changes to the RUB, in particular matters 3.4 a. and b. Consequently, on both an effects and policy basis I consider that the most appropriate outcome is that 121-123 Parrs Cross Road be included within the RUB.

Henderson Valley Edge Group

54. The rebuttal evidence from Ivan Tvrdeich, on behalf of submitters 5877 and 363 relates to the Henderson Valley Edge Group’s land comprising 42.5ha of land accessed from Henderson Valley Road and Forest Hill Road near the intersection of Henderson Valley Road and Pine Avenue. It is noted that land on both sides of Pine Avenue and a substantial part of Henderson Valley Road adjacent to the Group’s land has been developed for urban (residential activities), while the subject land is utilised for rural land uses (including orchard and vineyard activities) with dispersed low intensity residential activity.

55. The subject land is located towards the base of a broad valley system with moderate slope located on the western side of Forest Hill Road. Henderson Valley lies to the west and Oratia to the South East. The subject land is located approximately 3km from central Henderson and has ready access to urban amenities, retail, commercial and industrial areas, schools and public open space. From a topographical and locational perspective, the land is not constrained.

56. While the land adjoins the urban extent of Henderson, it is my view that it maintains a Rural Character. In particular, the property at 29 Henderson Valley Road, which is occupied by a vineyard, visually defines the transition point between urban character (adjacent to the road) and the mixed rural character of Henderson Valley. Similarly, the property at 83-105 Forest Hill Road is the predominant transition point from urban to rural character along Forest Hill Road (although there are small clusters of housing further up the road). The other properties sit behind a band of housing along Henderson Valley/Pine Road, but continue to provide a rural backdrop to that housing and demarcate the transition between urban and rural activities.

57. When the potential effects of urbanising the land are considered at a site and local level, an “effects-based” view could be formed that use and development of the land for urban purposes would not be adverse. However, that reflects the challenge posed by assessing the merits of urbanising individual sites in isolation from the broader context, including the policy context set out above. In short, such an assessment does not enable consideration of cumulative adverse effects of further urban development in the Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

Page 18 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

58. In my view the lower section of Henderson Valley Road and Pine Avenue extending to Holdens Road, which are predominantly subdivided to an urban density on both sides of the road – illustrate where historic planning decisions have failed to clearly define a defensible limit to the urban edge and a clear separation between urban and rural land. I consider that those historic decisions were made under a more ad hoc planning regime that lacked the clear policy direction now provided by the WRHAA and RPS sections of the PAUP. Consequently, it is my view that past decisions (that do not accord well with today’s policy considerations) should not be relied upon as a catalyst for further urban extension into the Foothills of the Waitakere Ranges.

59. I consider that there are three main failings in respect of whether the subject land could be considered favourably for inclusion into the RUB (to be followed by a Residential zoning). Those failings are:

a) The subject land has a rural character and acts both a “gateway” into the rural areas of the Foothills and as a “backdrop” to the existing urban activities along the southern side of Henderson Valley Road and Pine Avenue; and

b) The Group’s land is part of the Foothills, it does not have any geophysical features that would form a defensible boundary to the RUB and provide a defined limit to the City’s urban area; and

c) Any further extension into the Waitakere Ranges Foothills would result in a further and cumulative loss of rural character within that area and would diminish the rural buffer between the urban parts of the City and the sensitive landscapes and ecology of the Waitakere Ranges.

60. In respect of the policy effects of such an extension, I have summarised the relevant statutory provisions and objectives and policies above. It is clear in my view that an extension of the RUB to include the Henderson Valley Edge Group land would be contrary to Part 2 of the Act, the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, the RPS objectives and policies relating to the Waitakere Ranges (B 4.3.5), proposed Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay and the IHP’s guidance on changes to the RUB, in particular matters 3.4 a. and b. Consequently, on both an effects and policy basis I consider that the most appropriate outcome is that Henderson Valley Edge Group’s land should not be included within the RUB.

NZIA and Urban Design Forum

61. The New Zealand Institute of Architects and Urban Design Forum submissions (5277-358, 359, 360 and 5280-362) identify the following three potential areas for

Page 19 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

inclusion into the RUB, which are supported by the landscape evidence of Bruce McKenzie:

 close to the Swanson Railway Station (including lower Tram Valley Road); and

 on the western side of the Candia Road Ridgeline; and

 near the intersection of Pine Avenue and Parrs Cross Road.

62. The first of these areas covers the CDL land in Christian Road (addressed above) and the land owners by Les Wilson (submitter 2553) at 780-784 Swanson Road, which I addressed in rebuttal evidence on Topic 075. In respect of both properties, for the reasons expressed above and in prior evidence, I consider that the most appropriate outcome is the retention of the RUB around Swanson (i.e. these areas remain outside of the RUB).

63. The second area on the western side of the Candia Road Ridgeline, would extend urban activity into an area considered in part as part of the Swanson Structure Plan process – in particular that west sloping area of land located between Simpson Road and Candia Road. Presently, when accessed from either road there is a clear transition from the urban area into the rural area, which is characterised by rural-residential allotments of 2-4ha in area.

64. The distinctive rural character of this area is derived from the broad westerly outlook to the Waitakere Ranges and the absence of any urban development within the landscape across a westerly aspect. The subject land also forms part of the internal Candia Road valley system character i.e. properties on the western side of the road look back across the road as rural activities on that eastern side of the valley. In order to maintain rural character, to retain a buffer between urban and rural areas, and to avoid cumulative adverse effects – I consider that the most appropriate outcome is the retention of the RUB on the eastern side of Simpson Road (eastern side of the Simpson Road ridgeline) in accordance with the PAUP as notified.

65. The third of these areas covers an area of relatively step topography that forms an escarpment above and to the west of the Oratia Stream. The historic subdivision to the west of the Parrs Cross Road and West Coast Road intersection has resulted in moderately intensive residential development on the flatter and more readily developed land within the RUB in this location. For similar reasons to those provided in respect of Forest Hill Road above, I consider that an extension to the RUB into this area (with the exception of 121-123 Parrs Cross Road discussed above) would not be the most appropriate outcome, as it is not consistent with the maintenance of rural character within the Waitakere

Page 20 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Foothills and that the land is moderately constrained due to slope with reduces its suitability for development.

66. In my view each of the three potential areas for inclusion within the RUB are would be contrary to Part 2 of the Act, the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA, the RPS objectives and policies relating to the Waitakere Ranges (B 4.3.5), proposed Chapter E6.2 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay and the IHP’s guidance on changes to the RUB, in particular matters 3.4 a. and b.

Summary and Conclusions

67. In summary I support the evidence of Council’s Planners, in particular Eryn Shields, in respect of the submissions requesting an extension of the RUB within the WRHA. In particular, I note and concur with his reasons that the notified position of the RUB should be retained (without amendment):

a) The proposed RUB aligns with the boundary of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and it is appropriate to avoid urban expansion into this in terms of the effects on the rural character of the foothills.

b) The land that is subject to the submissions does not form a defensible RUB.

c) The expansion of urban development into the northern and eastern foothills will not meet the requirements of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act in terms of maintaining the rural character.

68. In respect of the 15 requests for an extension of the RUB into the WRHA, my assessment and view is that only one of those requests considered under Topic 016 satisfies the relevant matters to be given effect to/had regard to, is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies and is consistent with Part 2 of the Act. In my assessment, the property at 21-123 Parrs Cross Road therefore warrants inclusion within the RUB.

69. However, in respect of the other 14 requests, in particular the following submitters who have filed evidence under this topic, my assessment and conclusions do not support any other extensions of the RUB into the WRHA as being the most appropriate outcome in respect of the relevant matters to be given effect to/had regard to and Part 2 of the Act.:

- Ali Sheer (5265-1) in respect of 112 Simpson Road, Henderson Valley.

- CDL Land New Zealand Limited (3159) in respect of 7-11 Christian Road, Swanson.

- The Henderson Valley Edge Group (5877-1, 5877-2) and Ljubo and Lucija Tvrdeich (363-2) in respect of land at 1/232, 236, 240A, 248, 266, 270 and

Page 21 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

290 Henderson Valley Road and 83-105 and 107 Forest Hill Road, Henderson.

- Urban Design Forum (5277-358, 359, 360), NZ Institute of Architects, (5280- 362) in respect of land close to the Swanson Railway Station (including lower Tram Valley Road); and to the east of the Candia Road Ridgeline; and near the intersection of Pine Avenue and Parrs Cross Road.

Consequently, I consider that each of those requests should be rejected.

James R Hook Planning Consultant 15 December 2015

Attachments 1. Section 8 – Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

Page 22 Evidence of James Hook for Submitter FS3147 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Topic 016 – RUB (North/West) December 2015

Attachment 1:

Section 8 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (WRHAA) 2008:

The objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage area are— (a) to protect, restore, and enhance the area and its heritage features: (b) to ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it: (c) to adopt the following approach when considering decisions that threaten serious or irreversible damage to a heritage feature:  (i) carefully consider the risks and uncertainties associated with any particular course of action; and  (ii) take into account the best information available; and  (iii) endeavour to protect the heritage feature: (d) to recognise and avoid adverse potential, or adverse cumulative, effects of activities on the area’s environment (including its amenity) or its heritage features: (e) to recognise that, in protecting the heritage features, the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision: (f) to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area, of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect,—  (i) is of an appropriate character, scale, and intensity; and  (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and  (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl: (g) to maintain the quality and diversity of landscapes in the area by—  (i) protecting landscapes of local, regional, or national significance; and  (ii) restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes; and  (iii) managing change within a landscape in an integrated way, including managing change in a rural landscape to retain a rural character: (h) to manage aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the area to protect and enhance indigenous habitat values, landscape values, and amenity values: (i) to recognise that people live and work in the area in distinct communities, and to enable those people to provide for their social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being: (j) to provide for future uses of rural land in order to retain a rural character in the area: (k) to protect those features of the area that relate to its water catchment and supply functions: (l) to protect in perpetuity the natural and historic resources of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the people and communities of the Auckland region and New Zealand.

Page 23