Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel IN

Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER OF Of Topic 016/017 – RUB and Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DENNIS JOHN SCOTT ON BEHALF OF KARAKA HARBOURSIDE ESTATE LIMITED (SUBMITTER 3644; FS 2965)

RE PARAREKAU ISLAND

DATED 18 November 2015

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Dennis John Scott.

2. I am a landscape architect and resource management consultant specialising in landscape assessment, land use management, planning and design in urban, rural and coastal environments.

3. This statement of evidence is given in support of Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited (3644 and FS 2965) (“KHEL”) in support of its submissions in relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”) Topic 081 - Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas). In particular, this evidence relates to a request for the extension of the RUB to include KHEL’s land at Pararekau Island, Hingaia (“the Island”) and for operative Mixed Housing zoning and appropriate precinct provisions to be applied to the Island.

Qualifications and Experience

4. I hold the qualifications of a Diploma in Urban Valuation (1969) and a postgraduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture (1974). I am a Registered Landscape Architect and Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects. I am a past – President (2009-2011) of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA). I am a signatory to the Ministry for the Environment Urban Design Protocol. My career as a landscape architect dates back to 1974 when I began working in the public sector on a range of landscape planning and resource management projects. From 1987-2010 I was the director and principle consultant of D J Scott Associates Limited, implementing projects for both private and public sector clients. I am now an independent consultant landscape architect.

5. Relevant specific landscape planning and resource management projects over my career of 42 years are set out in Attachment A to this evidence.

6. I confirm that I have read the code of conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2014) and I agree to comply with it. In that regard, I confirm that this evidence is written within my area of expertise, except where otherwise stated, and that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

Scope of Evidence

7. My evidence will address the following topics:

o Background 3

o Site Context and Interpretative Landscape Character Overview o Design Process and Methodology o Visual Assessment – Methodology o Visual Assessment - Analysis

Summary

8. KHEL seeks to apply a residential (mixed housing) zone to Pararekau Island. That will result in a significantly larger number of sites on the island (approximately 100 as opposed to the 11 sites provided under the operative provisions). It produces a different visual outcome and necessitates some changes to the manner in which the roading network, open space network and planting on the island will be implemented. Overall, however, the key elements for development on the island are closely based on those in the operative provisions.

9. The proposed residential (mixed housing) option and design, in my opinion represents a net positive development outcome in comparison to the existing, relatively barren rural character of the island.

10. The Island is located within the upper estuarine reaches of the Manukau Harbour. It is adjacent to Kopuahingahinga Island and the two islands have been addressed collectively in the operative provisions. That continues to be the case under the current proposal.

11. The Council has not identified any significant heritage areas (SHA), high quality landscape areas (RPS sensitivity rating), outstanding natural features (ONF), outstanding natural landscape (ONL), or areas of high or outstanding natural character (HNC/ONC) in this portion of the upper Manukau Harbour (Attachment 3).

12. In my opinion, the dominant character of the Hingaia landscape is now irrevocably ‘urban’ in context.

13. The KHEL proposal to include the Island within the RUB and to apply mixed housing zoning was assessed from the surrounding visual catchment to determine potential visual effects.

14. The proposal for the Island, when viewed in the context of the surrounding landform and current development, will generate changes in the landscape perceived as being high and moderate from several of the close and/or immediate views. Notwithstanding the scale of those changes to views of the Island, it is my opinion that the proposal will not have any significant adverse visual effects, particularly if 4

regard is had to the increasingly urban context within which the Island is located and the low-lying nature of Pararekau Island which means that it does not play a dominant role in the landscape.

BACKGROUND

15. DJ Scott Associates Limited were initially engaged by KHEL in 2004 to provide an assessment of the existing landscape and environment of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands in the context of a proposal to develop this rural landscape for rural residential activities and to provide recommendations for potential development scenarios and associated landscape and ecological enhancement and management for that form of development. The proposals that were prepared at that time were embodied in the private plan change request made by KHEL (Papakura Private Plan Change 8) which ultimately led to an Environment Court consent order introducing what are now the operative district plan provisions for the site. Those provisions are reflected in the provisions set out in the PAUP as notified.

16. In the initial stages of my engagement with KHEL several design-development scenarios and options were explored. Further iterations of design development and refinement have occurred over approximately 6 years of the project development process. This emerging and adaptive design refinement has been a result of KHEL’s changing vision for the Island but has been informed by input from the KHEL consultancy team members and the key structural, cultural and archaeological elements on the Island that were identified and given effect to through the plan change process.

17. KHEL now seeks to apply a residential (mixed housing) zone to the Island. That will result in a significantly larger number of sites on the island (approximately 100 as opposed to the 11 sites provided under the operative provisions). It produces a different visual outcome and necessitates some changes to the manner in which the roading network, open space network and planting on the island will be implemented. Overall, however, the key elements for development on the island are closely based on those in the operative provisions. That reflects both the fact that the shape, topography and other characteristics of the island effectively drive development in certain directions and also that the process which led to the operative provisions was a robust one that put in place structural elements that are equally valid for a more intensive, urban development.

18. My understanding is that the request by KHEL for a residential (mixed housing) opportunity is a response to Auckland Housing demand within the southern growth area, in particular Karaka, and recognises the attractiveness of the Island for residential development. 5

19. The proposed residential (mixed housing) option and design, in my opinion represents a net positive development outcome in comparison to the existing, relatively barren rural character of the island. A significant public open space continuum on the coastal margin of Pararekau Island remains intact. The proposal promotes a landscape and environment that reflects a positive transformation of the existing environmental condition of the site. In my opinion, extremely significant repair, remedial and enhancement measures are fundamental elements of the proposal. These are designed to manage the identified suite of biological, ecological, physical, aesthetic and heritage elements, patterns, processes and functions of the site.

20. The proposed residential mixed housing development will be set within a significant restored ‘natural’ landscape framework and functional ecological infrastructure. This landscape open space pattern focuses on the coastal edge and the two dominant wetland areas. The location of public pedestrian/cycleway connectivity around and across the island is identified.

SITE CONTEXT AND INTERPRETATIVE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OVERVIEW

21. The Island is located within the upper estuarine reaches of the Manukau Harbour. It is adjacent to Kopuahingahinga Island and the two islands have been addressed collectively in the operative provisions. That continues to be the case under the current proposal.

22. Pararekau Island is 20.2342 ha in size, and Kopuahingahinga Island is 11.3360 ha in size. Both islands are connected to the Hingaia Peninsula via two causeways, which also link the islands together.

23. The ‘Islands’ are contained within the Pahurehure inlet, which feeds into the Drury Creek and various smaller tributaries, which create the Hingaia Peninsula.

24. The wider landscape context of Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands, within the Hingaia area, consists of a mix of emerging suburban residential development, extensive Countryside Living (Karaka Park), larger ‘lifestyle block’ developments, characterised by large residential dwellings on 1 – 2 ha blocks, and some smaller farm blocks, used for some agricultural and horticultural production. The landscape is continuing to undergo transition, however:

(a) The area of the mainland to the south and southeast of the islands is within the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and also now located within the PAUP RUB. The area is zoned single house under the PAUP. It is currently in a development and settlement 6

phase of residential and urban intensification. The Karaka Harbourside development is nearing completion.

(b) The area of land to the south and south-west of the islands forms part of a historic rural residential development comprising 1 ha blocks. This land is zoned future urban under the PAUP but has been identified as a special housing area under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. My understanding is that plan changes to bring operative urban zoning is on that land are to be heard shortly after the exchange of this statement of evidence.

(c) The land on the southern side of Pahurehure Inlet to the west of Drury Creek is rural in nature. While there are views from the Western end of the Island to that land, the Island’s shape means that most views from it are to the north and south so that there is only a limited opportunity to see rural vistas.

(d) The land to the east, north and north-west of the islands (being the balance of the land bordering the Pahurehure Inlet out to Weymouth to the north-west is all zoned and used for urban purposes.

25. Thus the Islands, Kopuahingahinga and Pararekau, are set within this area of existing and continuing residential development, including Wattle Downs, Conifer Grove, and the Hingaia Peninsula development area. Located to the east of the Islands are the southern motorway, and the developed urban areas of Papakura.

26. The site context in ‘cultural landscape’ terms is currently predominantly ‘urban/ suburban/peri-urban’. For example, the land to the east and north is suburban; the Karaka Harbourside land to the south east is now suburban; the land to the south west of Kopuahingahinga is residential/rural residential. The land to the west remains rural. The future urban zoning applied to the balance of Hingaia and the urbanisation that is anticipated as a result of the SHA process mean that in the future the cultural landscape will become increasingly urban and suburban in nature.

27. The Island sits within the Pahurehure Inlet, which is shallow and very tidal. (Attachments 1 and 2) In terms of the natural landscape character and quality of the inner harbour environment, the area exhibits the typical range of disturbances associated with the historic and current land use sequences of farming, industrialisation and urbanisation. This includes coastal erosion, the effects of stormwater runoff, siltation, loss of biodiversity, loss of indigenous habitat and weed infestation. There is very little native vegetation cover in the wider area, and any remnant patches are of a very low quality, due to the presence of invasive weed species, low species diversity, and the extreme isolation and small size of the individual remnant and/or regenerating indigenous vegetation patches. 7

Kopuahingahinga Island is the only significant area of terrestrial indigenous vegetation recovery in the immediate vicinity of the islands. The balance of the land in the area is urbanised, pasture or in transition from pasture to urban.

28. It is important to note that the Council has not identified any significant heritage areas (SHA), high quality landscape areas (RPS sensitivity rating), outstanding natural features (ONF), outstanding natural landscape (ONL), or areas of high or outstanding natural character (HNC/ONC) in this portion of the upper Manukau Harbour (Attachment 3). I agree with the Council’s conclusions in that regard and do not propose to address these matters further.

29. The site context in ‘natural landscape’ terms is dominantly ‘highly modified’, within the natural, yet also modified upper Manukau Harbour environment.

30. In this sense, it can be concluded that a ‘natural character’ and/or a ‘rural character’ has ceased to have a dominant influence on the contextual landscape of the Hingaia- Papakura - upper Manukau Harbour landscape and environs.

31. In my opinion, the dominant character of the Hingaia landscape is now irrevocably ‘urban’ in context.

32. In relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”) Topic 081 - Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas). I support the extension of the RUB to include the KHEL land at Pararekau Island, Hingaia (“the Island”) for operative Mixed Housing zoning and appropriate precinct provisions to be applied to the Island.

DESIGN PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

33. An important element of the provisions introduced by Papakura Private Plan Change 8 is the Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands Structure Plan (Appendix 17E of Plan Change 8) and Pararekau Island Landscape Concept Plan and Access Area Plans (Appendix 17F of Plan Change 8) (Attachment 4)

34. That document identified and took account of the key constraints applying to the Island. Given that those constraints apply equally to the Island regardless of the form of development, they have been incorporated into the planning regime now proposed by KHEL through the ‘Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands Structure Plan’ (“SP”) (Attachment 5).

35. The SP identifies:

 Access Area/Roading  Public walkway and cycleway - indicative only 8

 Esplanade Strip/Reserve  Public walkway and cycleway - indicative only  Recreation / Drainage Areas / Green Network (The Locations are indicative and the areas will be reduced to the extent that they are crossed by roads)  Public walkway and cycleway - indicative only  Drainage and Slope Protection Areas  Archaeological Sites  Coastal Building Limitation Line (Currently being reviewed and likely to move seaward)  Private/Public Open Space  Tohu - Indicative Location

36. The SP is developed from the following analysis and concept design plans:

 The aerial and contour base (Attachment 6)  The Site - Slope and Drainage: o This analysis identifies the key slopes of Pararekau Island. It is noted that most of the moderate and steep slopes are located on either the coastal margin and or the drainage patterns. The balance of Pararekau Island is of moderate to flat contour. (Attachment 7)  The Site – Constraints and Opportunities: o In combination with the above analysis and the recent and ongoing geotechnical and coastal process investigations by Mr Shane Lander (Lander Geotechnical Ltd) and Mr. Jim Dahm (Eco Nomos Ltd), the dominant constraints to development are the coastal margins (particularly that area within the Draft ‘no build’ line demarcated and the wetland areas). o The archaeological sites are also identified. It is noted that the SP incorporates the arrangements for archaeological site management that were made with Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Waka Taua Trust through the Plan Change 8 process . o In addition, provision is made for site pedestrian connectivity. (Attachment 8)

 Potential Development Concept: o The Potential Development Concept is indicative only (Attachment 9). However, it is important to note that extensive areas of coastal, wetland and street tree planting is promoted on the indicative 9

concept plan. This document demonstrates how the Island might be developed in accordance with the proposed provisions.

37. The physical and ecological functions and plant associations recommended and the landscape character outcome that is envisaged is documented as follows:

 Outer Coast Planting Management Area (Attachment 10)  Inner Coast Planting Management Area (Attachment 11)  Gulley Revegetation and Parkland Planting Management Area (Attachment 12)  Wetland Planting Management Area (Attachment 13)

38. The overarching theme for the proposal includes the development of a mix of native enhancement planting and an open space and parkland network that will complement and form a framework for the built form proposed for the island. The intent is to produce a living environment where the built form is integrated into a comprehensive planted network, which enhances the ecological function of the island, while providing for a high quality open space living environment for residents of the Island.

39. A significant element of the proposal is the landscape enhancement and management of the coastal edge interface, which has been severely affected by coastal erosion processes, deforestation, and past land use of the Island, including grazing of cattle and pine plantations. It is proposed that the 20m Esplanade Strip be treated as a comprehensive management area, to provide management of the eroding edge and to protect the archaeological sites, in addition to providing a recreational area for the wider public and residents of the Island.

40. It is also important to note, that subdivision of Lot 1 within the Kopuahingahinga and Pararekau Structure Plan Change 8 provisions has been implemented. This has resulted in:

 The implementation of the coastal walkway and planting associated with the margins of that Lot. (Attachment 14)  The protective covenanting and lodgement of the Vegetation and Pest Management Plan for Kopuhingahinga Island.

VISUAL ASSESSMENT – METHODOLOGY

41. The KHEL proposal to include the Island within the RUB and to apply mixed housing zoning was assessed from the surrounding visual catchment to determine potential visual effects.

Development Assumed for Assessment

42. The assessment is based on the implementation of a development outcome as illustrated on Attachment 9 – Potential Development Concept. That development approach is been designed to be consistent with the SP and in my opinion represents a realistic outcome in terms of the proposed provisions. Whilst any development that does occur on the Island is likely to differ in terms of details the overall structure and form of development is in my opinion likely to be consistent with that shown on Attachment 9.

43. This visual assessment has addressed the visual and landscape relationship of the proposed subdivision with its immediate and surrounding environs. In order to appraise the visual effect of the proposal, the existing landscape character and site context is considered and effects of the proposed modification to the landscape assessed.

44. The landscape visual assessment was based on a mixed housing development (Attachment 9) with buildings at a permitted height of 9m.

45. The Pararekau Island Planting Management guidelines as outlined on Attachments 10 -13 inclusive have also been taken into account.

46. It can be assumed that under average growing conditions the proposed revegetation areas on coastal edges will reach a height of 3 – 5 M between 5-10 years. Amenity and massed planting can be expected to reach heights of between 2.5M – 3.5M in 5- 10 years. Individual specimen trees and street trees (native and exotic) will mature to 5M -10M. I also note that, assuming best horticultural practice is followed as part of the landscape implementation process, the larger the plant specimen is at the time of planting, the quicker these heights will be reached.

Landscape Assessment Criteria

47. The visual assessment considered a series of elements, which contribute to the overall visual impression of the proposed development within the landscape. These included:

 The landscape character and context within which the proposed subdivision will be viewed.  The amount of development visible associated with the proposed subdivision  Screening based on existing foreground elements such as vegetation and topography, and the potential areas of land available for revegetation  The level of physical and visual disturbance generated by activities associated with the proposed subdivision. 11

 The expectation of viewers.  The distance of viewers from the site  The background against which the proposal will be seen.

48. In my opinion, landscape change can be either adverse or positive. It is considered that landscape changes due to the introduction of built form are not inherently negative or adverse in terms of visual effects and impact. Context, site factors, density, open space patterns, amenity, ecological and physical issues, building siting, topography and vegetation together with elements of diversity, complexity, and coherence all play an interactive part in the overall landscape outcome. The Attachment 10 Proposed Development Concept introduces a significant amount of vegetation diversity, particularly at the coastal edge. The street trees on the internal accessways will also significantly contribute to that vegetative complexity.

Visibility of Site

49. The site, in my opinion, is located within an area of predominantly residential or urban character, with small areas of open pasture and pockets of native and exotic vegetation, essentially to the south west. There are significant areas of new urban urban development present in the surrounding landscape. For the reasons discussed above, the extent of urban development will only increase in the future.

50. The topography of the surrounding area is relatively flat to gently rolling, dissected by a series of streams and creeks formed by the arms of the Drury Creek. The level nature of the surrounding landform means that the site is visible from several locations.

Viewing Audience

51. The potential effect on the viewing audience will vary based on individual vantage points. The availability of views will be dependent on:

 The location and context of the viewpoint  The expectation of viewers  The importance of the view, which may be determined with reference to Its popularity or the numbers of people affected  Whether the view is transient or one of a sequence of views, as from a moving vehicle, or a person walking or cycling on a footpath. The primary viewing audience in this instance therefore consists of a combination of people in vehicles, recreational users (pedestrians, cyclists and boaties), and views from private residential dwellings at a range of distances from the proposal. 12

Representative Viewpoints Selected

52. Nine representative viewpoints have been identified in relation to the available views of the site.

53. For each viewpoint the degree of visibility was assessed. The viewpoints also allow assessment of the effect of intervening vegetation, topography and the proposed development on the view.

54. The nine public viewpoints that have been chosen are identified on Attachment 15 and were taken from the following locations:

 VP 1. Karaka North Road.  VP 2. Hingaia Esplanade to the west of Oakland Road  VP 3. Hingaia Esplanade north west of Milano Boulevard  VP 4. Hingaia Esplanade north of Portofino Point Road  VP 5. Coastal Reserve/Park off Walter Strevens Drive  VP 6. Walter Strevens Reserve  VP 7 Glenross Drive Foreshore Park  VP 8. Carnoustie Drive Foreshore Park  VP 9. Carnoustie Drive Foreshore - east of Kauri Point Reserve.

55. The selection of the viewpoints was undertaken with the goal of including representative viewpoints in respect of all potentially affected viewing audiences.

56. The most significant change since my original visual assessment was undertaken1 in 2008 is the increase in the number of dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the Island e.g. Karaka Harbourside Estates.

57. In my opinion, this change has served to reinforce the developed nature of the contextural landscape. In addition a significant number of trees in the stands of mature pines on Pararekau Island and in part Kopuahingahinga Island have now been removed. This has had a minor visual effect on landscape change from off-site viewpoints.

VISUAL ASSESSMENT - ANALYSIS

Quantitative Assessment - Scale of Change

58. The following scale has been adopted to categorise the potential change in view from each of the representative viewpoints. I emphasise that these terms address the

1 Parerekau Island Landscape Report and Visual Assessment. DJS 1177. April 2008. 13

quantity or scale of change, which is separate from whether it has a positive or negative effect on the quality of view:

(a) High Visual Effect: Where the proposal causes a significant effect on the existing view

(b) Moderate Visual Effect: Where the proposal causes a noticeable effect on the existing view

(d) No Change: Where the proposal causes no discernable effect on the existing view.

Scale of Effects perceived from Southern Viewpoints

59. The first four viewpoints considered are all located along the southern coastline of the harbour. Because of the proximity of the Island, perceptions of development differ significantly between the viewpoints and I therefore discuss them individually below.

60. VP 1. Karaka North Road. This viewpoint is to the south west of the Island. It has views of the western and south-western face of Kopuahingahinga Island and the western (narrow) end of Pararekau Island. My expectation is that the viewer will see coastal urban development, albeit at a distance and as framed within the proposed coastal planting. The existing mix of pasture, a large house, outbuildings and vegetation will be replaced by a view of a greater number of houses and more planting. I consider that the change will be perceived as being moderate initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed inner coast vegetation management programme establishes.

61. VP 2. Hingaia Esplanade to the west of Oakland Road. This viewpoint is a short distance to the east of VP 1. Accordingly, a greater proportion of Pararekau Island is obscured behind Kopuahingahinga Island. Pararekau Island is part of a wide view of the harbour, with additional residential areas on the northern coastline of the Pahurehure Inlet. Again, I consider that the change will be perceived as being moderate initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed inner coast vegetation management programme establishes.

62. VP 3. Hingaia Esplanade north west of Milano Boulevard. This viewpoint is immediately south of the Island and has views along most of the southern face of the Island. It is located within the Karaka Harbourside subdivision. Visible beyond (and in parts over) the Island are the urban areas on the northern coast of Pahurehure Inlet. 14

Views here of the Island will change from a pastoral landscape to an urbanised coastal landscape with increasing coastal planting. I consider that the change in landscape will be perceived as being high initially but will reduce over time as the proposed inner coast vegetation management programme establishes.

63. VP 4. Hingaia Esplanade north of Portofino Point Road. This viewpoint is further east from VP 3. Accordingly, the Island forms a smaller part of the Vista available and there are far wider views towards the northern coastline of the Pahurehure Inlet. In my opinion the urbanisation of the island will form one element in the views of the largely urbanised coastline of the Inlet. Pararekau Island is significantly closer than the northern coastline of the Inlet but the dominant element along the coastline viewed from this location looking north-east towards the island will be the much closer urban development immediately to the west of the viewpoint within Karaka Harbourside itself. I expect the change to be perceived as being high initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed inner coast vegetation management programme establishes.

Scale of Effects perceived from Northern Viewpoints

64. The remaining viewpoints are all located along the northern coastline of Pahurehure Inlet. While their angle of view changes, in each case the viewpoint offers a vista that includes much (VP 5 and 6) or virtually all (VP 7, 8 and 9) of the northern face of the Island.

65. The character of that view will change from pastoral to residential. In that regard, the viewpoints already have views of the existing Karaka Harbourside residential development to the south and south-east of the Island. As is clearly apparent from the photographs relating to VP 7, 8 and 9, there are currently views over the Island into those residential areas.

66. My expectation is that the urban development on the Island will have significantly greater quantities of coastal planting which will help to screen or soften views of the dwellings on the Island and will remove the current views across the Island to the residential development behind. In the circumstances, I consider that the views towards and over the Island from these northern viewpoints are already affected by the existing urban development to the south. While development on the Island will result in increased residential development that is closer to each of the viewpoints it will not change the fundamental urban context that already exists.

67. In addition, one of the most important backdrops to Pararekau Island is Kopuahingahinga Island. The positive landscape visual backdrop effect that this landscape contributes to Pararekau Island increases, in terms of views from the 15

northern viewpoints (viewpoints 5 – 9 inclusive). Simply, Kopuahingahinga Island is the dominant visual backdrop element in the mid-ground view. Kopuhingahinga Island is subject to a protection covenanted and formal vegetation and pest management control programmes are now in place. Accordingly, I expect that this backdrop will remain intact over time.

68. In summary, I comment as follows on the changes that will be experienced from each of the northern viewpoints:

 VP 5. Coastal Reserve/Park off Walter Strevens Drive: Moderate change initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed outer coast vegetation management programme establishes

 VP 6. Walter Strevens Reserve: Moderate change initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed outer coast vegetation management and street tree programme establishes

 VP 7 Glenross Drive Foreshore Park: Moderate change initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed outer coast and vegetation management programme and street tree programme establishes

 VP 8. Carnoustie Drive Foreshore Park: Moderate initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed outer coast vegetation management programme and street tree programme establishes

 VP 9. Carnoustie Drive Foreshore - east of Kauri Point Reserve: Moderate change initially, reducing to low over time as the proposed outer coast vegetation management programme and street tree programme establishes.

69. As noted above, it is important to recognise that views of Pararekau Island from the longer distance viewpoints and in particular

 VP 7 Glenross Drive Foreshore Park  VP 8. Carnoustie Drive Foreshore Park  VP 9. Carnoustie Drive Foreshore - east of Kauri Point Reserve.

will all be strongly influenced by the context of the existing Karaka Harbourside coastal development and the Kopuahingahinga Island backdrop. The Island in my opinion will quickly be perceived as an extension visually of that existing coastal settlement and extended vegetated landscape views.

Conclusions regarding scale of perceived effects 16

70. In my opinion, I consider the scale of visibility and visual effect of the development to be high and moderate from some locations initially. However, the development is more than built form.

71. The Pararekau Island development will incorporate a planting and vegetation management programme. This will be both extensive and intensive. The coastal margins are to be returned and where possible recovered to an appropriate coastal and/or coastal broadleaf forest system. This is a significant difference between the approach taken to the coastline on the Karaka Harbourside development to the south. In that case (as can be seen from the photographs) there is relatively little planting of scale along the Esplanade. As a result, dwellings have extensive and unobstructed views out to the harbour, across the Island and over the Inlet. Conversely, residents on the northern side of the Inlet currently experience largely unobscured views of those residential areas, including across the low-lying Island.

72. The proposed planting programme for the Island will not only soften and partially screen views of housing on the Island, it will also soften and screen views of the residential development behind, when viewed from the north. My low visibility/visual effect ratings are reliant on the implementation and successful establishment of that planting and vegetation management program.

Qualitative Assessment – Whether Effects are Adverse or Benign

73. I turn now to the qualitative aspects of the visual assessment – that is, are the changes that will be experienced positive, negative or neutral in character? In that regard I have consider the following factors.

74. The landscape character and context within which the proposal will be viewed.

(a) The proposal sits within a wider landscape context that consists mainly of residential subdivision, of varying densities. The areas to the north of the Island, that is the main viewing area into the site, comprises dense residential subdivision and continuing development. To the south west, the development is more scattered, comprising larger countryside living and lifestyle blocks, with large houses and extensive garden and open space areas. The Hingaia Peninsula is currently under development, to form another area of dense residential subdivision.

(b) The proposal for Pararekau Island fits into the landscape context of the area, as it will be viewed as a mix of vegetated and open space, interspersed with built form, with a vegetated coastal edge. It will result in the loss of open space but that land is privately owned, relatively low lying and within the wider urban context. 17

(c) I consider that the proposal can only be seen negatively if it is assumed that modern residential development has an inherently negative effect on visual amenity. I do not agree with that proposition. The combination of high quality modern urban design (effectively required through the PAUP zoning provisions) and the additional constraints proposed as part of the SP give me confidence that the resulting urban environment will be an attractive one that will contribute positively to the wider urban context. The appearance of the Island will change but it will not become an unattractive place.

75. The amount and number of proposed house sites visible.

(a) The number of houses visible varies from each viewpoint to the next, however the same kind of pattern of built form and vegetation will be visible from each.

(b) From each viewpoint only a limited number of house sites will be visible. Those sites that are visible will not be viewed in their entirety and will be broken and filtered by the proposed amenity and coastal vegetation for the site.

(c) In many cases the proposed houses will be viewed against a backdrop of hills, the forested backdrop of Kopuahingahinga Island and the existing urban development around the Inlet, and will form part of a familiar landscape character to the area. In the circumstances, the development will be of a form and nature that is consistent with the surrounding environment.

(d) As noted above, viewers who see the Island from the north are currently able to look across it to the urban development beyond. In that context, the major change experience will be that the urban development will be slightly closer but better screened.

76. Screening based on existing foreground elements such as vegetation and topography, and the potential areas of land available for revegetation. Because Pararekau Island is virtually level, there is little opportunity to site houses where they will be hidden from view by intervening landforms. However, the planting associated with the development is expected to be of high intensity and it that will be that component of the mixed housing area that breaks up and filters the bulk of the buildings.

77. The level of physical and visual disturbance generated by activities associated with the proposed subdivision. 18

(a) The proposal involves a high quality of residential development, generally compatible with the quality and density of existing development in the area. As such it can be expected that there will be very little disturbance caused by residents of the proposal.

(b) There will be a small amount of activity associated with the proposed esplanade strip and recreation and drainage public use areas, but this will generally be used for passive recreation, such as walking or cycling, and therefore will cause very little adverse effect on the surrounding environment. In addition, these areas will be available to the wider public including residents of the Karaka Harbourside area to the south. To that extent the proposal will continue to provide opportunities local residents to experience the wider views available from the Island and in particular the views to the north and north-west across the Inlet.

(c) There will be a small amount of disturbance in the short term, caused by the earthworks and construction for houses and the proposed access, although this will be of short duration.

78. The expectation of viewers. The viewers of the area are predominantly within residential areas, and therefore are surrounded by and accustomed to the day-to-day use of residential developments. The use of the Island by the residents and wider public will be in keeping with the current use of the area.

79. Distance of viewers from the site. The Hingaia land to the south is now zoned residential and is beginning to develop. The Plan Change development will occur in conjunction with that development and therefore residents moving into that area (Hingaia) will experience change both on the mainland and to a much lesser extent on the Island. Change is progressive over time and the experience of that change is part of the transformation of the wider contextual landscape.

80. Background against which the proposal will be seen.

(a) In many cases the proposal will be viewed from Wattle Downs (ie: from the north by north-west) against a topographical backdrop, formed by the Hunua Ranges and Bombay Hills. This backdrop will mean that the houses will not protrude above the horizon, and in my opinion will be integrated into the view, through the use of recessive colours and carefully designed landscape planting. 19

(b) In areas where this backdrop is not available, the proposal will be viewed, after a period of time, against a vegetated backdrop, formed by the proposed coastal rehabilitation and amenity planting for the site.

(c) As noted above, the views from the north-west also include views over the island to the existing residential development at Karaka Harbourside and the now covenant protected Kopuahingahinga Island.

Overall Visual Assessment

81. The proposal for the site, when viewed in the context of the surrounding landform and current development, in my opinion will generate changes in the landscape perceived as being high and moderate from several of the close and/or immediate views of Pararekau Island. More distant views from the southern upper Maukau Harbour, north of Pararekau Island, (viewpoints 5-9 inclusive), in my opinion, will be of a more moderate to low visibility/visual effect. In fact over time, it is my opinion that the views of Pararekau Island will improve dramatically as the coastal and street tree planting management programme matures.

82. Kopuahingahinga Island is now a significant protected covenant entity and has now become a complementary significant visual mitigation element in relation to views from the established communities of Wattle Downs and Conifer Grove to the north of Pararekau Island.

83. The associated landscape enhancement for the site will aid in integrating any proposed built form into the site, and will help to ensure that the proposal is discreet within the overall Hingaia visual catchment.

84. Notwithstanding the scale of those changes in view, it is my opinion that the proposal will not have any significant adverse visual effects, particularly if regard is had to the increasingly urban context within which the Island is located and the low-lying nature of Pararekau Island which means that it does not play a dominant role in the landscape and the contextual future development programme also promotes and enables and recreational access and use across it from the north to the residential development on the mainland.

CONCLUSION

85. In relation to Pararekau and Kopuahingahinga Islands and the contextual landscape and natural character assessment matters, it is important to note that the Council has not identified any significant heritage areas (SHA), high quality landscape areas (RPS sensitivity rating), outstanding natural features (ONF), outstanding natural landscape 20

(ONL), or areas of high or outstanding natural character (HNC/ONC) in this portion of the upper Manukau Harbour. I agree with the Council’s conclusions in that regard.

86. It is my opinion that the proposal will not have any significant adverse visual effects, particularly if regard is had to the increasingly urban context

87. I therefore support Karaka Harbourside Estate Limited (3644 and FS 2965) (“KHEL”) in its submissions in relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (“PAUP”) Topic 081 - Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas).

88. In particular, I support the request for the extension of the RUB to include KHEL’s land at Pararekau Island, Hingaia (“the Island”) and for operative Mixed Housing zoning and appropriate precinct provisions to be applied to the Island.

Dennis Scott

Registered Landscape Architect

18 November 2015

Attachment A

PO Box 49 Whitford

Auckland New Zealand 2149

Ph +64 9 530 8149 +64 27 492 2855

[email protected]

Profile: DJScott Landscape Architect

Experience and Qualifications

1. DJScott Landscape Architect is a Landscape Architect and Environmental Planning and Design Consultancy, specialising in landscape analysis and assessment, land use management, planning and design in urban, rural and coastal environments.

2. I hold the qualifications of a Diploma in Urban Valuation (1969) and a postgraduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture (1974). I am a Registered Landscape Architect and Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects; and a past – President (2009-2011) of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA). I am a signatory to the Ministry for the Environment Urban Design Protocol. My career as a landscape architect dates back to 1974 when I began working in the public sector on a range of landscape planning and resource management projects. From 1987-2010 I was the director and principle consultant of D J Scott Associates Limited, implementing projects for both private and public sector clients. Currently, I operate (from 2010) as an independent consultant landscape architect and environmental planner and designer. I am also a retired Adjunct Professor from the Department of Landscape Architecture at Unitec, Auckland, where I taught in the in the Bachelor of Landscape Architecture programme since the inception of the BLA Degree in 1998. My specialist professorial subject was (and is) Landscape Planning, Assessment, Design and Management.

1 3. I have a significant track record as an expert witness providing evidence on many previous occasions before District and Regional Council Hearings and before the Environment Court. This expertise is based on experience of continued involvement in a wide range of landscape issues. These include; the interpretation of community aspirations, policy documents and instruments, private landowner interests, and landscape and environmental analysis at a range of integrated spatial and temporal scales. The project work has ranged from the site specific to sub-regional and regional landscape scales, and from site-specific landscape management plans to district plans and structure plans. The practice focus throughout these projects has been to enable the successful implementation of sustainable environments for future generations, thereby fulfilling the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. A selection of specific landscape planning and resource management projects over my 40 year career include:

• The Marlborough Sounds Planning Study (1974 – 1975);

• Several large scale infrastructure projects for the MWD on behalf of Government client departments, including housing, roading, energy (dam construction), mining and quarrying and irrigation schemes. 1974 – 1989 – excluding secondment to the NRPA from 1978 -1979))

• Catchment development, management and advisory projects at a national, regional and local scale in conjunction with the MWD, Water and Soil Division functions. (1974 - !989)

• Assessments in relation to coastal development and protection for Northland Regional Planning Scheme (1978 - 1979);

• Russell Planning Study (1980);

• Rangaunu Harbour Study (1982);

• Hokianga Environment Issues and Options Paper (1983);

• Kerikeri Catchment Study (1985);

• Bay of Islands Water and Coastal Planning Study (1986);

• Planning and Resource Management Framework for the Preparation of the Hauraki Gulf District Plans (1987 – 1994);

• Point Chevalier Coastal Management Plan (1994);

2 • Auckland Central Area Urban Design Assessment (1994 - 1995);

• Manukau Harbour Coastal Management Strategy (1996);

• Development East Tamaki Structure Plan (1998);

• Mangawhai Structure Plan (2004);

• Kaipara District Council Reserves and Open Space Strategy (2003 – 2004);

• Mangawhai Estates Development and Structure Plan (2005 -2007)

• Whakatane District Council Natural Heritage Chapter, Proposed Whakatane District Council Plan (2004-2005).

• Matiatia Village (2006) - Urban Design Competition Winner (Auckland Council)

• Westpac Mussel Development, Whangaroa – Northland (2008)

• Lee Island Development Estates (2008 – Current)

• Plan Change 32 Clevedon (HK Hattaway) – (2012 -2014 ongoing)

• Recent project clients include Auckland City Council, Whangarei District Council, Kaipara District Council, and Whakatane District Council, together with a wide range of private sector clients.

5. Of general relevance is the large scale macro-landscape expertise and focus of the practice. In addition to the large scale studies numerous individual private projects and developments has been undertaken within the Northland, Hauraki Gulf Islands, Auckland, Waikato, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty and Hawke’s Bay Regions. These have included rural subdivisions, marina developments, invidual/private jetties, other coastal structures and marine farms and quarry and mine projects.

6. The DJ Scott Landscape Architectural practice also has specialist knowledge in the area of landscape rehabilitation utilising native plant material. From 1979 to 1987 I was the nursery manager for the Ministry of Works Kauri Nursery, Northland. Operating in conjunction with Aokautere Plant Science Centre, Palmerston North, I carried out research and development of plant material production and implementation of revegetation techniques. This was part of a government research programme that initiated and pioneered techniques in the area of large-scale landscape rehabilitation in New Zealand. I have since refined these techniques and

3 methodologies successfully through my role as technical manager (Research and Development) of Awarua Nursery (now Green Infrastructure Nurseries Ltd), a specialist revegetation / production nursery and Green Input Ltd, specialist revegetation implementation contractors.

7. In addition to the specific career experience in landscape architectural practice I have had an ongoing academic involvement in landscape theory and education; specialising in rural and coastal landscape planning, management and design. I was a part time lecturer in Rural Land Management at Auckland University Town Planning School for three years (1987 – 1989) and a part time tutor for the Diploma of Horticulture at Northland Polytechnic. I have also tutored at seminars / field days at the Northland Polytechnic in Sustainable Agriculture for farmers and small rural property owners. Until recently, I lectured at UNITEC, Auckland, for the Bachelor of Landscape Architecture degree on Rural Landscape, a role I have had involvement in since the inception of the UNITEC Bachelor of Landscape Architecture in 1995. I was appointed to the position of Adjunct Professor in 2009 within the landscape Department of UNITEC. My specialist subjects include Rural and Urban Design Studio (Level 7), Landscape Planning, Assessment and Management (Level 6) and Practice Organisation (Level 7 and 8).

8. In addition, for a period of 12 years I was a partner in a consultancy, Rural Design; providing specialist advisory services to farmers, small landholders and general land- use managers on sustainable agricultural practices and farm design.

9. I was also a member of the national Integrated Catchment Management steering committee (now in recess) for the Ministry for the Environment Sustainable Management Fund, administered by Landcare Trust. I have been involved in a number of significant development projects in applying my knowledge of Integrated Catchment Management in urban, rural coastal environments and extractive industry projects. The location of most of these developments has been within the Northland, Hauraki Gulf Islands, Auckland, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty and Hawke’s Bay Regions. This experience with the rural and coastal development sector has required, over the past 30 years, an evolving knowledge of the marketplace for land and the associated financial feasibility and viability of projects. More often than not, involvement in rural / coastal residential projects now assumes a project management role, including assistance to developers in financial decision making, due diligence analysis and marketing strategies. Project management of the construction / implementation phase of project development is also part of this role.

10. These, and a significant number of previous similar projects, has provided the development of a firm understanding of the types of landscape, visual, amenity, environmental, community, territorial authority and private development matters and

4 issues that arise as part of the process associated with projects such as the PAUP hearings process.

DENNIS JOHN SCOTT

Registered Landscape Architect

Fellow NZILA

16.11.15

5 Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

Before the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act IN THE MATTER OF The2010 Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act AND 2010

ANDIN THE MATTER OF Of Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) IN THE MATTER OF Of Topic 081 – Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)

ATTACHMENT B OF EVIDENCE OF DENNIS JOHN SCOTT ON BEHALF OF KARAKA HARBOURSIDE ESTATE LIMITED (SUBMITTER ATTACHMENT 3644;B OF FSDENNIS 2965) JOHN SCOTT ON BEHALF OF KARAKA HARBOURSIDE ESTATE LIMITED (SUBMITTER RE PARAREKAU3644; FS 2965) ISLAND

REDATED PARAREKAU 17 November ISLAND 2015

DATED 18 November 2015

Table of Contents

Attachment 1: Site Location and Context Attachment 2: Site Location and Context - Aerial Attachment 3: Map A: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Significant Heritage Areas and Landscape Quality Southern Region Map 2 - Sheet 3 Map B: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Significant Landscape Sensitivity Southern Region Map 3 - Sheet 3 Map C: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Proposed Plan Change 8 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes Map Series 3a - Sheet 5 Map D: Natural Character Assessment - Auckland Region. 2009 Sheet 16. By Stephen Brown Attachment 4: Appendix 17E. Structure Plan. 15 August 2011 Attachment 5: Structure Plan. Revised 16 November V2_2015 Attachment 6: The Site - Aerial and Contours Attachment 7: The Site - Slope and Drainage Attachment 8: The Site - Constraints and Opportunities Attachment 9: Potential Development Concept Attachment 10: Outer Coast Planting Management Areas Attachment 11: Inner Coast Planting Management Area Attachment 12: Gully Restoration and Parkland Planting Management Area Attachment 13: Wetland Restoration Planting Management Area Attachment 14: Site Photos of Existing Planting on the Site Attachment 15: Viewpoint Location Map Attachment 16: Viewpoint 1 Attachment 17: Viewpoint 2 Attachment 18: Viewpoint 3 Attachment 19: Viewpoint 4 Attachment 20: Viewpoint 5 Attachment 21: Viewpoint 6 Attachment 22: Viewpoint 7 Attachment 23: Viewpoint 8 Attachment 24: Viewpoint 9

Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Map Base Source: New Zealand Topo Map Series Site Location and Context Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 1 Map Base Source: Auckland Council GIS Mapping Website Site Location and Context - Aerial Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 2 Map A: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Map B: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Significant Heritage Areas and Landscape Quality Significant Landscape Sensitivity Southern Region Map 2 - Sheet 3 Southern Region Map 3 - Sheet 3

Map C: Map D: Auckland Regional Policy Statement Proposed Plan Change 8 Natural Character Assessment - Auckland Region. 2009 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes Map Series 3a - Sheet 5 Sheet 17. By Stephen Brown Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 3 Appendix 17E. Structure Plan. 15 August 2011 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 4 Structure Plan. Revised 16 November V2_2015 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 5 The Site - Aerial and Contours Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 6 The Site - Slope and Drainage Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 7 The Site - Constraints and Opportunities Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 8 Potential Development Concept Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 9 Outer Coast Planting Management Areas Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 10 Inner Coast Planting Management Area Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 11 Gully Restoration and Parkland Planting Management Area Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 12 Wetland Restoration Planting Management Area Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 13 Photo A - Existing coastal planting (outer coast) Photo B - Entrance planting Photo C - Entrance gate and planting

Photo E - Existing coastal planting (outer coast)

Photo G - Entrance planting

Photo D - Existing coastal planting (inner coast) Photo F - Existing planting along walkway

Photo H - Existing coastal planting (outer coast) Photo I - Existing planting along walkway (inner coast) Photo J - Existing planting along walkway Photo K - Existing planting along walkway (inner coast) Site Photographs of Existing Planting on the Site Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 14 Viewpoint Location Map Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 15 Viewpoint taken standing eye level at the end of Karaka North Road. Approximately 800 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1768967.1096, Y: 5895410.8167. *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Single frame Viewpoint from same position as above. *Note: Single frame was taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 1 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 16 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Hingaia Esplanade west of the end of Oakland Road. Approximately 770 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1769181.0256, Y: 5895353.7989 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Single frame Viewpoint from same position as above. *Note: Single frame was taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 2 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 17 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Hingaia Esplanade north west of Milano Boulevard. Approximately 390 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1770350.7506, Y: 5896387.7926 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Close up frame. Viewpoint from same position as above with 3 frames (entire site could not be captured in a single 50mm frame). *Note: frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 3 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 18 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Hingaia Esplanade north of Portofino Point Road. Approximately 720 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1770810.0685, Y: 5896630.9452 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Viewpoint 4 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 19 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of the Coastal Reserve/Park off Walter Strevens Drive. Approximately 750 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1770118.9754, Y: 5897553.0200 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Single frame Viewpoint from same position as above. *Note: Single frame was taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 5 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 20 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Walter Strevens Reserve. Approximately 1200 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1769407.6417, Y: 5897837.9768 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Single frame Viewpoint from same position as above. *Note: Single frame was taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 6 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 21 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Glenross Drive Foreshore Park. Approximately 1780 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1768822.2499, Y: 5898248.7432 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Single frame Viewpoint from same position as above. *Note: Single frame was taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 7 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 22 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Carnoustie Drive Foreshore Park. Approximately 1800 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1768186.0580, Y: 589781.9580 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.

Single frame Viewpoint from same position as above. *Note: Single frame was taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been re-sized and cropped to fit to A3 landscape paper size. Viewpoint 8 Attachment B of Dennis John Scott I 18 November 2015 Pararekau Island Attachment 23 Viewpoint taken standing eye level on the coastal edge of Carnoustie Drive Foreshore east of Kauri Point Reserve. Approximately 1880 metres from the edge of the site. X: 1767828.2083, Y: 5897323.8903 *Note: Photograph is a stitched panorama. Single frames were taken at 50mm lens focal length on 8th November 2015 by Dennis Scott. Image has been reduced to fit to A3 landscape paper size.