BEFORE THE UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2013

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Topic 081

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF TARA LOUISE HOTOP BA, MPLAN, INT.NZPI

For SAVE OUR ST HELIERS INC AND GLENDOWIE RESIDENTS & RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION INC

26 February 2016

Scott Wilkinson Planning Limited Suite 1, Level 3, 86 Parnell Road PO Box 37-359, Parnell AUCKLAND 1151 Tel: (09) 354-4166 Fax: (09) 925-2059 Mob: 022 015 6259 Email: [email protected] Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

Contents QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ...... 2 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES ...... 2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 2 PRECINCT OR SPECIAL CHARACTER OVERLAY? ...... 3 LOCALITY ...... 3 PART 2 RMA ...... 4 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PRECINCT – GENERAL ...... 5 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ...... 5 DEMOLITION CONTROL ...... 6 HEIGHT ...... 8 FRONT YARD SETBACK ...... 10 ACTIVITY STATUS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND ALTERATION AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS ...... 12 CONCLUSION ...... 13

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 1

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1. My name is Tara Louise Hotop. I hold the qualifications and professional membership listed on the title page. I am an intermediate member of the Planning Institute.

2. I have worked as a planner and resource management professional since 2010 which has included experience with local authorities and with a private sector consulting firm. I am a planning consultant with the firm Scott Wilkinson Planning.

3. My curriculum vitae is annexed as Attachment 1.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES

4. I confirm that I have read and am familiar with the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct Practice Note (updated December 2014). I agree to be bound by that Code of Conduct for this hearing and confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express in the following evidence.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

5. This rebuttal statement of evidence is made on behalf of submitters Save Our St Heliers Incorporated (SOS) and responds to the primary evidence of Vaughan Smith on behalf of Ancona Properties Limited (as well as relevant information set out in the evidence of Council witnesses identified in [6] below). In preparing this evidence, I have relied upon the evidence of Sally Peake (in relation to character and landscape effects) and Graeme Burgess (in relation to character, heritage and built form/architectural matters).

6. I have reviewed the primary evidence of Ross Cooper (Council - Planner), Mathew Riley (Council – Urban Design) and Rebecca Fogel (Council – Heritage Special Character and Pre-1944 mapping) in preparing this evidence.

7. I note that I was instructed to prepare evidence after the exchange of primary evidence had occurred. In order to appropriately and adequately rebut evidence of Ancona Properties Limited, I have also referenced Council’s evidence and proposed changes throughout this document.

8. This evidence will be structured as follows:

i. A brief comment on whether a precinct or character overlay is most appropriate for St Heliers Village;

ii. Commentary on the locality for which the submissions have been made;

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 2

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

iii. A brief outline of the legislative provisions relevant to the provisions for St Heliers Village;

iv. Comment on the different provisions of the St Heliers Precinct within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) as proposed by Council and/or by Ancona Limited.

PRECINCT OR SPECIAL CHARACTER OVERLAY?

9. It is noted that this hearing will consider whether a precinct or a Business Character overlay is the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the intended outcomes for the St Heliers village. In my opinion, this is immaterial, provided the provisions of either option afford appropriate recognition and protection to the special character and “sense of place” of the area. This point will be addressed by Counsel for SOS, and is also addressed in the evidence of Landscape Architect Sally Peake.

LOCALITY

10. St Heliers village has a special, recognisable character which encompasses the seaside locality, road layouts and generally consistent building heights (one to two storeys), verandahs, set-backs and layers of history within the existing built form of the area. This is widely recognised by the relevant experts:

11. Mr Cooper notes in his evidence at paragraph 14.9 that:

There is an identifiable seaside village ‘sense of place’ present within the Saint Heliers local centre that warrants protection and enhancement’ this sense of place is derived from a combination of its beachfront setting, the pattern of subdivision and road layout, the diverse range of building styles and types, the predominant one and two storey height of existing buildings, and how they relate to the street and wider Saint Heliers Bay waterfront

12. Mr Riley summarises the character and sense of place of the area within his evidence at paragraph 6.4:

The general one to two storey height within the precinct, in which taller buildings are the exception, gives St Heliers centre a visual openness and low frontage height to street width ratio that is complementary to the centre’s landscape setting at the mid-point of a bay and conducive to a perception of buildings nestled within their coastal landscape.

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 3

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

13. The character of the area is also described within the precinct description and Character Statement within the PAUP, which is noted to include:

…a significant number of buildings from the 1920s and 1930s together with a very small number from 1860s to 1920, and a mix of more recent buildings. Its sense of place is derived from a combination of its beachfront setting, the pattern of subdivision and roads, the diverse range of building types and styles, predominantly one and two storeys in height, and how buildings relate to their street frontage and the wider St Heliers Bay waterfront.

14. It was confirmed by the Environment Court in a 2009 decision that a local character or ‘sense of place’ is present within St Heliers Village that is worthy of protection and enhancement. For clarity, I note that I have not commented on the relevance of the Environment Court decision in this evidence. This is a matter that will be addressed by Counsel for SOS. I have instead focused on the merits of SOS’s submission points.

PART 2 RMA

15. In addition to the legislative framework that applies to the PAUP, several provisions in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) are directly relevant. These are:

• Section 5 – (including social, economic and cultural wellbeing, and avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment)

• Section 7(aa) - the ethic of stewardship:

• Section 7(b) - the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

• Section 7(c) - the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values

• Section 7(f) - maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

16. I understand that Counsel for SOS will refer to relevant provisions of the Marine Park Act 2000.

17. When assessing the section 5 and section 7 values, it is important to consider the contributions to the special character of St Heliers village is its seaside setting and the relationship of the buildings with this setting.

18. I consider that one of the primary ways in which the existing built environment associates with the Hauraki Gulf is through the low-level height of buildings which helps to maintain

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 4

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

a view to the beach and the water from within the village, and a view from the beach towards the village; in combination with the layers of history apparent within the built form.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PRECINCT – GENERAL

19. In general, I consider that the aspects of the area that contribute towards the special character and amenity values of St Heliers Village have not been appropriately recognised or provided for within the precinct provisions proposed within Mr Cooper’s evidence and will not meet the purpose of the Act.

20. Mr Smith has expressed general support for the position of Mr Cooper; and has recommended some further changes. In general, I do not agree with the position of Mr Smith.

21. Specific provisions of the precinct are reviewed below.

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

22. The notified version of the precinct contains one objective and five policies. Mr Cooper has proposed to slightly amend the objective, delete all of the proposed policies within the precinct, and add two new policies (paragraphs 17-20).

23. While I consider the proposed change to the objective to be relatively inconsequential, the deletion of the policies, particularly policies 2, 3, 4 and 5, is not supported. I consider that these policies are fundamental to the ability to give effect to the objective.

24. Mr Smith agrees with the changes to the policies proposed by Mr Cooper and considers that they will give effect to the objective of maintaining and enhancing the established character of St Heliers Village (paragraph 20). I disagree with this assessment and consider the proposed new policies to be completely insufficient for their purpose.

25. I agree with the evidence of Ms Peake at paragraph 19 of her evidence where she states that she does not support the proposed St Heliers Precinct changes and considers that “the single objective and two policies are completely inadequate to meet the purpose of the precinct”.

26. The two new policies only focus on retaining the appearance of one to two storeys in the centre of the street; and avoiding vehicle crossings, car parking and loading spaces on key streets within the precinct. I consider that there are more components that make up the established built form character, beachside setting, natural environment and amenity

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 5

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

of St Heliers than these points. I consider the relevant components to be more adequately encapsulated in the notified policies.

27. While I note that Mr Riley and Mr Cooper consider the notified policies to be too vague, I consider the character statement and precinct description help to define and provide context to the policies, and this is able to be reinforced by appropriate rules and assessment criteria. The methods can give clarity to the policies.

28. Regarding the new Policy 1 proposed by Mr Cooper, I consider only managing the height of buildings in the centre of the street to be insufficient. This is addressed further in paragraphs 41-49 of this evidence. This policy could be relevant to the Precinct, in addition to the five notified polices, but only if it is re-worded as follows:

Manage building height so that centre streets retain the appearance of a the predominant one to two storey streetscape character of the village is maintained.

29. Mr Smith proposes one additional policy within his evidence. While I agree that additional policies would be required over and above the inadequate replacement policies proposed by Mr Cooper, the policy proposed by Mr Smith has little enforceability due to the language used; and I also disagree that new development should be encouraged over the adaptive re-use of existing buildings. Therefore, should the Panel adopt the additional policy put forward by Mr Smith, I consider some changes are required as follows:

Encourage Require any new development that isto be compatible with the established built character of St Heliers, and contributes to its amenity and special qualities, without requiring that development to mimic existing buildings, their styles and materials.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

30. Mr Smith agrees with and supports changes to the demolition control proposed by Mr Cooper (paragraphs 36-37 of Mr Smith’s evidence). I disagree with this assessment.

31. The notified version of the Precinct contains controls upon demolition of buildings, whereby demolition of a building is a discretionary activity, or a controlled activity if a resource consent has been granted for a replacement building.

32. Mr Cooper proposes to remove the demolition control from the buildings within the area, on the basis that Council has assessed the buildings under the pre-1944 demolition control overlay and concluded that the overlay should be removed from all buildings (paragraph 14.23a). It is noted that this is not fait-accompli as final decisions will be

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 6

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

determined by the Hearings Panel based on all submissions and evidence presented to them. This should therefore not be utilised as a basis to remove demolition controls from a precinct. Mr Burgess will address this further.

33. Mr Cooper also states the lack of a Special Character overlay over the area to be a reason for the removal of the precinct demolition controls (paragraph 14.23a). This issue is still to be decided in context of the 081 hearings. Mr Burgess comments further on this.

34. In my opinion, buildings within the village do not need to be pre-1944, nor entirely original or historically ‘pristine’, to help to define, or contribute positively towards, the character of an area and be worthy of retention.

35. As noted in the evidence of Ms Peake (paragraph 27), the terms historic character and special character are not interchangeable. For the reasons set out in paragraph 28 of Ms Peake’s evidence, I consider that the proposal has a special built character and that the existing buildings in the area contribute significantly to the special character of the area. This point is examined further by Ms Peake.

36. Mr Burgess examines the importance of historic development to the character of St Heilers village. I adopt his assessment. Mr Burgess notes that the character of the areas rests to a large degree on factors that are created by historic development, in particular the pattern of development, bulk and form created by single storied and two storied buildings over a long period of time. This is acknowledged within the precinct’s character statement. Mr Burgess considers that demolition or removal of older buildings may have an adverse effect on the character of the place.

37. The buildings within the village contain layers of history which contribute to the charm and character of the area. While there are newer buildings in the area that do not conform to this sense of character and scale, I do not consider these anomalies to be a sufficient reason to remove demolition controls from the entire area. On the contrary, I consider them to be reason to strengthen the controls applying to the remaining areas where the character is still in-tact.

38. As identified by Mr Cooper in paragraph 14.20 of his evidence, the controls do not specifically protect the individual buildings, but incentivise plans for a replacement building to be assessed at the same time as an application for demolition of an existing building. I consider this to be appropriate for the St Heliers village as the existing character contribution of the building that is proposed to be demolished will be able to be compared to and assessed alongside the contribution and acceptability of the proposed

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 7

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

new building, without expressly preventing/dis-incentivising demolition or new development.

39. If resource consent is approved for a new building on the basis that it maintains and enhances the character of the area, then demolition would be able to proceed as a Controlled Activity. However if consent for the new building is declined, then demolition would not be able to proceed (unless a separate application for demolition was made and approved as a Discretionary Activity). This will function appropriately, provided the remainder of the precinct is sufficient to ensure the full effect of new buildings are able to be considered.

40. I therefore consider that demolition controls as proposed in the notified precinct should be retained.

HEIGHT

41. Mr Smith agrees with and supports Mr Cooper’s position on the height control and the front yard setback control within the notified version of the precinct (paragraphs 36-37 of Mr Smith’s evidence). I disagree with this assessment.

42. The generally consistent one to two storey height of buildings within the village is acknowledged by all relevant experts to be an important contributor to the character of the area. Despite this, Council has recommended retention of the current maximum 12.5m and four storey height limit for new buildings.

43. I consider that a 12.5m and four storey height limit has the potential to significantly adversely affect the character and amenity of the locality.

44. Two new adjoining buildings have recently been constructed on the corner of Maheke Street and which are approximately 12.5m in height. The height of these buildings are out of character with the area and effectively dwarf the other buildings in the locality. The adverse effect of this height is particularly obvious when driving down St Heliers Bay Road towards the coast as displayed in Figure 1 below:

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 8

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

Figure 1: Photo of view down St Heliers Bay Road 45. It is noted that the building is highly visible and dominant in the wider environment and blocks important views to the water that people currently experience upon approach to the town centre from St Heliers Bay Road. Equally, it dominates the experience when approaching the village along Tamaki Drive (including for pedestrians).

46. Figure 2 below depicts a view of the building from the coast, which quite clearly demonstrates the visual and dominance effect that has resulted from a 12.5m building.

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 9

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

Figure 2: Beachside view of 12.5m building in village

47. If buildings up to 12.5m in height are permitted activities on other sites in the village, particularly St Heliers Bay Road where consistent low-level heights have been maintained, I consider that the special character and amenity of the area has the potential to be significantly affected. This is contrary to the Objective of the precinct which requires the character and amenity to be maintained or enhanced. Equally, it dominates the experience when approaching the village along Tamaki Drive (including for pedestrians).

48. It is therefore my opinion that a 9m height limit is most appropriate for the village.

49. 9m will enable two to three storey commercial buildings to be constructed on sites within the precinct, consistent with (and actually slightly taller than) the widely accepted predominant built form of the village.

FRONT YARD SETBACK

50. In an attempt to mitigate the adverse effect associated with building height, the precinct imposes a frontage setback control (Precinct rule 3.1.1) which requires that buildings do not exceed 8.5m in height within the initial 2.5m of the site frontage. The rule includes an exception for a balcony to be positioned within the 2.5m setback including a balustrade up to 1.5m additional height; and a further exception for a roof to be constructed up to 9.5m in height with a 45-degree pitch within the 2.5m setback.

51. I consider that adverse character and amenity effects of buildings above 8.5m in height will not be mitigated by this rule as the portions of the building above 8.5m will still be highly visible within the streetscape and wider environment and will appear inconsistent with the predominant built form of the area.

52. The effect of building height is not limited to the immediate location on the street in front of the building as this rule suggests, but would be able to be experienced and viewed from other locations within the area. This effect is again exemplified by the buildings in Figures 1 and 2 above.

53. In recent years, a new building was constructed on the eastern side of Turua Street which generally conforms with the height and front yard setback controls proposed for the precinct (in this case the building is approximately 8.5m in height for the initial 2m of the site before extending to 12.5m in height, and contains a balcony within the setback). This building is in Figure 3 below:

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 10

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

Figure 3: New building on Turua Street

54. As can be seen in Figure 3, the overall height and bulk of the building is apparent in the streetscape and its visual effect and dominance is not lessened by the small setback of the upper level.

55. Should similar buildings be constructed intermittently along St Heliers Bay Road, as would be enabled by the rules proposed by Mr Cooper, I consider the character of the area would be adversely affected.

56. I also note that the exception for a roof within the setback means that only a small, angled portion of the front yard between 9.5m – 12m in height is actually required to be recessed by the rule, highlighted in Figure 4 below:

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 11

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

Figure 4: Small area protected by the front yard setback rule (highlighted in yellow)

57. This small portion will be relatively unnoticeable from the surrounding area and will not mitigate the dominance or amenity effect of a 12.5m / four storey building.

58. I therefore consider that Rule 3.1 of the precinct should be changed to a blanket 9m height limit in order to ensure the Objective of the zone is able to be achieved.

ACTIVITY STATUS FOR NEW BUILDINGS AND ALTERATION AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS

59. Mr Smith agrees with and supports Mr Cooper’s position on the activity status for new buildings and alterations and additions to existing buildings within the precinct (paragraphs 36-37 of Mr Smith’s evidence). I disagree with this assessment.

60. Mr Cooper has proposed deletion of the Restricted Discretionary activity status for additions and alterations and new buildings within the Precinct on the basis that consent is required for these activities within the underlying zone. I disagree with this deletion.

61. Removal of this activity status from within the precinct will consequently remove the relevance of additional matters for discretion and assessment criteria that exist within

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 12

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

the St Helier’s precinct. The proposed change is also out of scope and should not be accepted.

62. The matters for discretion and assessment criteria of the underlying Town Centre zone do not direct a decision maker towards the precinct description, matters of discretion, assessment criteria or character statement of the St Heliers Precinct. These aspects of the precinct are vital to ensuring the important characteristics of St Heliers are maintained or enhanced.

63. Taking into account the range of effects that could result from new buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings, I consider a more appropriate activity status to be Discretionary to enable full consideration of potential effects

64. I also consider the normal tests for notification should apply to these activities. I consider people and communities should not be excluded from the notification process if a proposal within the area may result in adverse effects on the natural, historic and physical aspects that they value within the area.

CONCLUSION

65. St Heliers Village has a special, recognisable character and amenity which is made up of the seaside locality, road layouts, generally consistent one to two storey buildings heights, set-backs, layers of history and style of the existing built form of the area. This special character and amenity should be maintained and enhanced in order to achieve the purpose of the Act.

66. In my opinion the precinct as proposed by Mr Cooper and supported and/or altered by Mr Smith has the potential to result in adverse effect on the character and sense of place of St Heliers.

67. I consider the following matters necessary to achieve the purpose of the Act:

• Retain the notified objective and policies of the precinct;

• Retain the notified demolition control for buildings within the precinct;

• Remove the height and front yard setback rule and introduce a new rule restricting the building height within the precinct to a maximum of 9m;

• Retain the Activity Table within the Precinct;

• Ensure that the normal tests for notification apply to new buildings, and to alterations and additions to existing buildings;

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 13

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

• Apply a Discretionary Activity status to new buildings, and to additions and alterations to existing buildings.

Tara Hotop 25 February 2016

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 14

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

ATTACHMENT 1

Curriculum Vitae

NAME Tara Hotop POSITION Planning Consultant Scott Wilkinson Planning, Auckland QUALIFICATIONS Bachelor of Arts (Geography and English), University of Otago (2007) Master of Planning, University of Otago (2009) MEMBERSHIPS Intermediate Member of New Zealand Planning Institute EXPERIENCE Statutory planning experience in New Zealand since 2010 AREAS OF EXPERTISE Resource Consent Assessments Assessment of a wide variety of resource consent applications (land use and subdivision, non-notified, limited notified and fully notified) while working as a Resource Consents Planner at Hutt City Council, including presenting recommendations at hearings and representing Council at Environment Court mediation. Assessment of resource consent applications (including a Special Housing Area application under the PAUP for subdivision and development of new dwellings on a site in One Tree Hill) on behalf of Auckland Council. Facilitation of pre-application meetings and pre-hearing meetings. Provision of expert planning advice to applicants and members of the public. Development Planning Interpretation and application of planning legislation to assist with development feasibility studies (including multiple large-scale Special Housing Area developments). Due diligence assessments for potential land procurement from a development potential perspective. Preparation of applications and Assessments of Environmental Effects for a wide variety of proposals in the Auckland region. Including subdivision and land use consents for a wide range of residential, retail, commercial, business, and industrial proposals). Preparation of applications for areas of land to become Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA). Preparation of plan change and qualifying development applications for subdivision and development under the HASHAA,

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 15

Save Our St Heliers Incorporated Evidence of Tara Louise Hotop

including a large scale subdivision in the Hobsonville area (300 + allotments); and an apartment development in the North Shore (42 new apartments). District Plan Policy Planning input into plan changes on behalf of the Resource Consents Team to the Planning Policy Team at Hutt City Council. Planning input into the further submission process of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) on behalf of Housing New Zealand Corporation. Submitter advice and representation for the PAUP process. Submitter Representation Preparation of submissions on behalf of identified affected parties. Reserves Act Interpretation and Application Negotiation and preparation of Reserves Occupation Agreements on behalf of Dunedin City Council. Provision of planning advice to the Resource Consents Team at Council on behalf of the Parks and Gardens Division on applications where reserves and other council land was potentially adversely affected. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Sept 2014 - Present Planning Consultant – Scott Wilkinson Planning Limited May 2014 – Sept 2014 Intermediate Development Planner – Housing New Zealand Limited Feb 2011 – May 2014 Intermediate Resource Consents Planner – Hutt City Council Feb 2010 – Oct 2011 Reserves Leases Planning Officer – Dunedin City Council

Scott Wilkinson Planning Page 16