10 February 2016 Hearing Evidence for: Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel

With Regard to: Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts

On behalf of: Save Our St Heliers Inc. and St Heliers/Glendowie Residents’ Association Inc.

Margaret King

Submitter No: 6770 (Further Submitter No. 3716) ______

St Heliers Village Introduction

1. Save Our St Heliers Inc. is an organisation with over 600 members. St Heliers/Glendowie Residents’ Assn. Inc. has over 25 years of service to local residents. Both organisations are active in the community and well placed to represent the views of many residents. I am authorised to give this evidence on behalf of both Societies.

2. We have appeared before the Panel with regard to: Topic 029 and planning concerns related to Topic 079 Special Character and Pre-1944 Mapping in relation to the residential issues. Confirmation has been sought and granted for us to address all issues that pertain to the St Heliers Local Centre ‘Precinct’ in this Topic.

3. In addition to the support from our combined memberships, we refer in our evidence to the results of a large professional survey of residents (refer to primary submission pages 1 and 2). Also we will bring to the Hearing a volume of thousands of amassed comments and signatures which support our position.

4. In the submissions process for the PAUP we are aware that about 380 people lodged a proforma submission that also supports our position. I (Margaret King) completed one in an individual capacity in order to track their collective progress. We had discussions with IHP staff that these proformas had been incorrectly coded. This coding error has resulted in 6 vital submission points not being taken account across all of those submissions. Consequently Council’s evidence (Cooper, Riley and Lucas & Papaconstantinou) is based on the erroneous assumption that other than Ancona Properties Limited (5469), few submissions have been made on these vital matters.

5. This is clearly evidenced in Mr Cooper’s tracked change version of the Precinct Objectives and Policies for Saint Heliers (Part 2, Regional and District Objectives and Policies, Chapter F, 2 Central) which either deals exclusively with Ancona Properties’ submission or out of scope amendments.

6. Furthermore Council’s evidence does not refer to the expert assessment prepared by Sally Peake, Landscape Architect, which is annexed to, and forms part of, our primary submission.

St Heliers Village Background and Summary

7. The fundamental issues pertaining to community concerns regarding the St Heliers Village predate the Unitary Plan process (see our primary submission pages 1 and 2).

A U P – IHP T o p i c 0 8 1 Submitter 6770 10 February 2016 P a g e | 2

8. Legacy plans have failed to deliver stated aims of protecting and enhancing the character, history and heritage of St Heliers village. To quote one of our committee members “We have seen the future and it does not work.” What Council is proposing is similar to what we have now and that has given us two very large, out-of-scale new buildings which are inappropriate and just do not fit the seaside character everybody wishes to preserve. Our original submission deals with this at Page 3 with photographs in Appendix 2 on the second and third pages.

9. We disagree with Council’s proposal to remove the Pre-1944 overlay from the village (Topic 079, 2 December 2015, Primary Evidence of Rebecca Fogel 12.8). In particular we disagree that “only a couple of buildings identified in the [Boffa Miskell character] study are still …intact today.”

10. Our primary submission covers issues relating to:

 St Heliers’ coastal village location and relationship with the and Waitemata Harbour  The Saint Heliers Character Statement and other descriptions of the village’s history and its unique and established character – see Appendix A Boffa Miskell Heritage Analysis and Appendix B Saint Heliers Centre Plan; and also Appendix 11 of the PAUP as notified, and the Tamaki Drive Master Plan at pages 24 and 28  Adaptive re-use of existing buildings  Urban design  Height and bulk of buildings within the village  Notification  Local Centre provisions for a mix of businesses that serve the local community  Flood hazard and coastal environment  Infrastructure

11. We seek robust and meaningful planning solutions that will address these issues.

St Heliers Village Relief Sought

12. Our legal representations, by barrister Rob Enright, combined with the evidence of our expert witness, Landscape Architect Sally Peake, will detail our relief sought. (See Ms Peake’s Submission Statement attached to our Primary Submission, and her Statement of Evidence for Topic 081, sent together under separate cover).

Residential Rezoning

13. In Council’s evidence for Topic 081 large areas of Glendowie and St Heliers have been rezoned, which, if implemented, would have a massive impact on the built form, social fabric and environment of these suburbs. In the 9 working days between the lodgement of Council evidence, and our own deadline, it has been unrealistic to provide any detailed evidential feedback on what is proposed, and individual affected parties have mostly been unaware of the issue. Accordingly we oppose the rezoning in both suburbs and on behalf of our community we object to the lack of proper consultation, the lack of any meaningful supporting evidence, detailed impact studies and area analysis. How can this constitute sound planning policy? The process which rules these sweeping and far-reaching out-of-scope changes, and the time frame, have resulted in the denial of affected parties the right to be heard, and we argue this is a breach of natural justice. Legal submissions will be presented on this issue at the hearing.

14. In order to assist our community to have some basic information on Council’s latest position, a public meeting was held on 9 February 2016 and we will be appending feedback from the attendees of this meeting at our hearing. A U P – IHP T o p i c 0 8 1 Submitter 6770 10 February 2016 P a g e | 3

15. Most of Glendowie has been affected by ‘out of scope’ rezoning, together with large areas of St Heliers. This is affecting over 3000 residential properties in our two suburbs, and 208 of these properties are affected by a ‘double jump’, moving from a Single House zone to Mixed Housing Urban. (See Appendix labelled Rezoning Analysis for the Eastern Isthmus with data compiled from Appendix F of Lucas & Papaconstantinou’s Evidence Topic 081).

16. We have requested percentage change data by area in order to compare our local results with Council’s tables and graphs contained in ’s Preliminary Position on Zoning document, sourced from their website on 22 January 2016. Council have been unwilling or unable to supply us with those figures. Council’s Auckland-wide figures indicate minor changes across the region, however it is clear that major changes would result in our suburbs.

17. We oppose Council’s position to redefine the description of the Single House Zone. It is out of scope, unfair, not justified or appropriate and breaches rules of natural justice and public participation.

18. We support the evidence and submissions of Auckland 2040 in Topic 081.

Residential Rezoning Relief Sought

19. We ask the Independent Hearings Panel to dismiss the out of scope changes to the maps and Single House Zone description, as proposed by Council in evidence under Topic 081.

Concluding Statement

In our capacity as representing a number of the residents of St Heliers and Glendowie and having also canvassed opinion from large numbers of visitors to our seaside suburbs over many years, we are confident that the views expressed here are an accurate reflection of a large proportion of our residents, visitors and tourists. We place a high value on the environmental features, natural beauty and associated amenities of the area and have a genuine desire to play our part in nurturing what is valued now, in finding appropriate mechanisms to support growth, creativity and change for betterment, and to have a vision of the future that enables those who follow us to also enjoy the special character of this lovely place. We believe that communities should be a critical part of this planning process and that our local knowledge and commitment to our living environments, St Heliers village, Tamaki Drive and the Waitemata Harbour are assets that Council should foster for the benefit of all Aucklanders.

………………………………………….. Margaret King (on behalf of Save Our St Heliers Inc. and St Heliers/Glendowie Residents’ Assn Inc.) Rezoning Analysis Eastern Isthmus February 2016

Change From To All Ellerslie Glen Innes Glendowie Meadowbank Mission Bay Mt Wellington Panmure Pt. England St Heliers St Johns Stonefields Wai O Taki Bay

SH MHS 3562 21 19 1358 127 60 164 104 142 0 0 920 622 22 0 3 SH MHU 452 0 17 55 16 0 113 35 0 6 0 51 153 6 0 0 SH/MHS MHU 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 MHS MHU 2998 0 0 398 479 30 579 0 728 0 0 49 462 0 273 0 MHS THAB 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 MHS SH 35 0 0 0 22 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MHU MHS 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 38 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 MHU THAB 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 28 0 0 0 THAB MHS 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 THAB MHU 224 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 20 0 NC MHU 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 POS - Informal Recreation MHU2 0 0 0 1 1 0 000 00 00 0 0 Quarry MHU 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

7446 21 134 1811 645 91 869 168 908 6 106 1057 1269 28 330 3

7446 Single House SH Mixe d Hous ing Su bur ban MHS Mixed Housing Urban MHU Terrace Housing & Appartment Buildings THAB Neighbourhood Centre (?) NC Public Open Space POS

Prepared by: Robert Johnston 8-Feb-16

From Data ex: Appendix F Lucas and Papaconstantinou Evidence 081e Ak Cncl _ Central _ Rezoning _ Eastern Isthmus ………… .PDF Dated 26th January 2016

R1: Feb-8: Legend added R2: Ref to Appendix F added