Technical Report 7: Landscape Assessment
Technical Report 7: Landscape Assessment
Document History and Status
Revision Date Reviewed by Status 21.02.2019 R Pryor Draft 27.02.019 For Issue
File Number/Name 18740 LVA01 Author J Hogan Client Euroclass Services Ltd
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 LA4 Landscape Architects have been engaged by Euroclass Services Ltd to undertake a landscape assessment of Outstanding Natural Feature 93 (ONF 93) to inform a Private Plan Change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUPOP). As part of the plan change, Euroclass Services Ltd seeks to:
§ rezone the existing quarry zoning associated with the Stonehill Business Park under the AUPOP to Business - Heavy Industry
§ remove the ONF classification from the southern part of the plan change area that generally corresponds to the site at 79 McLaughlins Road (refer to Figure 1), as this is considered to be erroneous.
Figure 1. The Site and Plan Change Area In Relation to ONF93 Source: Babbage
1.2 The scope of this assessment includes:
§ a description of the site and setting
§ a review of the landscape assessment of ONF 93 undertaken as part of Landscape Evaluations of Geological Sites and Landforms of Auckland and the Identification of Outstanding Natural Features, which was prepared in 2012 and used to inform AUPOP
§ an assessment of the landscape values of the portion of the PC area currently located within ONF 93
27.02.2019 2 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS § conclusions as to the applicability of the ONF classifications locally and in particular to the site at 79 McLaughlins Road.
1.3 I am very familiar with the site and surrounds having previously prepared a landscape and visual assessment as part of the consenting stage for the nearby Auckland South Corrections Facility, as well as being the lead landscape architect involved in the landscape design and supervision of landscape works associated with the prison. 1.4 As part of re-familiarisation of the area, further site investigations were carried out during December 2018.
Figure 2. Site Location Source: Geomaps
27.02.2019 3 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2.0 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
2.1 In the AUPOP ONF 93 is identified as Matukutureia (volcanic cone) and Matukuturua lava fields and tuff ring. In the wider context, these features are located between the Auckland International Airport to the west and the established urban areas of Papatoetoe, Wiri and Manurewa to the east. The local area is generally characterised by low lying, varied, and gently undulating terrain located on the edge of the Manukau Harbour, and is defined by the lower reaches of the Waokauri Creek to the north and the Puhinui Creek to the south. Historically, and until relatively recent times, quarrying operations were also a significant feature of the area.
Figure 3. Oblique Aerial Photograph looking north (Plan change area highlighted in red) Source: Google Maps 2.2 Immediately to the west beyond the Puhinui Creek is Puhinui Reserve. Together with the lava fields (also commonly referred to as stonefields) they provide sizeable areas of public open space and a distinctive landscape scattered with archaeological remnants and natural landscape features. The most notable of which is the maunga, Matukutureia (formerly McLaughlin’s Mountain), which is a prominent local landmark. The maunga is of particular significance to Ngati Te Ata (who in conjunction with Pukaki ki Te Akitai hold Mana Whenua status), being the birthplace of the tribe’s eponymous ancestor Te Ata Rehia. The Stonefields are one of the last significant remaining examples of pre- European Maori settlement and gardening on volcanic soils in the region.
2.3 From the Maunga the lava field extends to the south-west and south-east to the edge of the Puhinui Creek. The lava field is characterised by a rolling hummocky landform
27.02.2019 4 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS predominantly covered in grassland (refer to Figure 3). Distinctive features include the widespread remnant gardens, with mounds, boundary walls, and former settlement sites. In this regard, the landscape has strong cultural associations. Human influence has been a significant component shaping the character of the local landscape in both pre- European times and post
colonisation.
Photograph 1. Matukutureia
2.4 The most significant influence has been the historic quarrying which has resulted in considerable landform modification, notably the removal of much of Matukutureia and almost total destruction another nearby cone, Matukuturua.
2.5 Over the past decade there has been a considerable change in landuse in the surrounding area, with the establishment of an industrial subdivision (Stonehill Business Park - proposed plan change area) immediately to the west of the lava field on land which formed part of the former quarry, and the establishment of the Auckland South Corrections Facility immediately to the east.
Photograph 2. Matukutureia with industrial development in the foreground
27.02.2019 5 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 2.6 This development extends the industrial influence of nearby Wiri and provides a significant contrast to the rural landscape further to the west. To the east between Matukuturua and Roscommon Road. the land is intensively developed with large footprint warehouses, industrial units and factories of up to 14m in height dominating the landscape. To the north is the Wiri Oil Services Ltd (WOSL). This bulk fuel storage facility is also a significant visual feature of the area with its large storage tanks of up to and in excess of 20m in height. This industrial and commercial landuse separates Matukuturua from the established residential areas of Papatoetoe to the north, Manurewa to the south-east, and Clendon Park to the south across Puhinui Creek.
2.7 The proposed plan change area lies immediately to the west of the Matukuturua lava field. Large scale industrial buildings and warehouses currently occupy the northern, and much of the central part of the business park. The southern portion, a large part of which comprises 79 McLaughlins Road, currently remains undeveloped. In this area, the land beyond the perimeter road (Harbour Ridge Drive) is characterised by open grassland extending down to the edge of the Puhinui Creek. This land contrasts with the more hummocky terrain of the lower lava fields to the east. A feature of this area is a wetland located between the road and Puhinui Creek. (refer to Figure 3 and Photograph 4)
Photograph 3. View to the south-west from 79 McLaughlin’s Road
2.8 This area is largely devoid of any significant vegetation with that present consisting mostly of rank pasture and scrubland dominated by exotic weed species such as woolly nightshade, gorse and privet. These are intermixed with a scattering of native coastal shrub and tree species, particularly around the wetland area and the margin of the creek.
27.02.2019 6 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Photograph 4. View from southern part of plan change area to the north east looking over the wetland to volcanic cone and lava field
3.0 BACKGROUND
Outstanding Natural Feature Overlay
3.1 Under section 6(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the protection of ONFs from inappropriate subdivision, use and development is identified as a matter of national importance.
3.2 During 2012 a study was undertaken by Brown NZ Ltd to inform the AUPOP1. The key objective of this report was to identify and map sites and landforms identified as geologically significant by Auckland Council that could be regarded as Outstanding Natural Features (within then the context of s.6(b) of RMA).
3.3 Guided by this assessment ONF’s in the Auckland region are now identified in Schedule 6 (Outstanding Natural Feature Overlay Schedule) of the AUPOP and are depicted on the accompanying maps. Under Schedule 6 ONF 93 is named Matukutureia and Matukuturua Lava Field and Tuff Ring and is described as a large volcanic landform. The relevant maps accompanying the AUPOP show ONF 93 extending into the proposed plan change area (refer to Figure 1).
3.4 Within Schedule 6 ONF 93 is described:
The Matukuturua lava field is one of the best-preserved lava fields remaining in the Auckland volcanic field and is an important representative example of the volcanic lava terrain that underlies much of the city. The lava field erupted from McLaughlin’s Mountain (Matukutūreia) volcano. Most of the original scoria cone and a section of the lava field in the north have been quarried away. Associated with the lava field is a section of tuff ring remaining from the early phases of the eruption. A small wetland has formed behind the ridge of tuff.
1 Brown NZ Ltd, May 2012. Landscape Evaluation of Geological Significant Sites and Landforms of Auckland and the Identification of Outstanding Natural Features
27.02.2019 7 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3.5 Of 270 potential landforms and sites identified as geologically significant by Auckland Council, the Brown NZ Ltd report identified 70 as being ONFs. The methodology adopted as part of the evaluation initially did a coarse screening to determine a broad classification for the 270 significant geological areas identified into 4 categories
1. Sites of Geological Value 2. Notable Natural features 3. Significant natural feature 4. Likely Outstanding features
3.6 The next step focused on categories 3 and 4 with targeted field survey, evaluation and mapping to determine the final list of ONF’s. Potential sites were then subject to more detailed investigations including site mapping and use of field investigations worksheets that considered the following evaluation factors to determine the recommended site/feature classification.
§ Intrinsic Geological Values § Perceptual Values § Associative Values
3.7 The applicable worksheet (Site No. 138) to the Matukuturua Lava Field evaluation is attached as Appendix 1. The worksheet scored the key values of the evaluation factors listed to determine an overall landscape evaluation score for the site at the upper end of the scale, which correlates with an ‘Outstanding’ rating in the report.
3.8 An aerial photograph is included on the worksheet that defines the extent of the ONF boundaries based on the desktop and site assessment. This includes the lava field that extends to the south-west and south-east from the volcanic cone to the edge of the Manukau Harbour. It also includes a small tongue that extends into the proposed plan change area which incorporates the wetland area described.
3.9 Despite this evaluation and corresponding mapping the ONF area subsequently depicted for ONF 93 in the AUPOP maps extends someway further east to the Puhunui Creek to include the subject site at 79 McLaughlin’s Road. The reasons for this disparity are unclear. (refer to Figure 4)
27.02.2019 8 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Figure 4. ONF Boundary in Relation to Proposed Plan Change Area Source. AUPOP
Geological Evaluation
3.10 As part of the application by Euroclass Services Ltd a geological evaluation of ONF 93 has been undertaken by Professor Shane Cronin2. The main focus of this assessment was on the mapped portion of the ONF that lies within the plan change area (79 McLaughlin’s Road).
3.11 After a thorough review of relevant geological literature relating to ONF 93 and extensive site survey, the report found that the existing ONF could be broken down into 3 distinct areas in geological terms, as follows (refer to Figure 5):
Area 1 - Includes most of the plan change area located within the ONF.
Area 2 - This is distinguished by an area of wetland that is partially located in the plan change area. It is identified within the report as an explosion crater of geological interest, being part of the Matukuturua lava field. The report recommends that the western portion of ONF93 be realigned along the western margin of the crater.
Area 3 - Is identified as the Matukuturua lava flow. This is located outside the private plan change area.
2 Cronin. S , Feb 2019. Geological Evaluation of Outstanding Natural Feature: Matukutureia and Matukuturua Lava Field and Tuff Ring. Auckland University.
27.02.2019 9 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Figure 5. Sub Areas Identified within ONF 93 by Prof Cronin Source: Babbage
3.12 The assessment draws the following conclusions and recommendations in relation to the specific areas:
Area 1 which is currently included as part of ONF 93, has no direct value as a primary geological feature, because this area either had no original volcanic cover, or those parts of it that did are highly modified, with much of the material removed. Although this area is identified as part of the ONF for the purposed of the AUP(OP), its value as a geological feature area is not supported. Overall, this area contains no value as a geological feature characteristic of Auckland’s Volcanic Field. It is recommended that Area 1 be removed from ONF 93.
Area 2 which is also currently included as part of ONF 93, is an explosion crater and forms a more appropriate western boundary of the ONF 93 due to its geological interest. The feature is part of the distinctive Matukuturua lava field that makes up the eastern part of ONF 93. It is recommended that the western boundary of ONF 93 be realigned along the western margin of the explosion crater (Area 2). This area is partially located within the Plan Change area.
Area 3 forms the margin of the Matukuturua lava flow, and is located outside the Plan Change area. No changes are recommended to this part of ONF 93. 3
3 Cronin S. Para 1.5
27.02.2019 10 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3.13 A key finding of the geological assessment is the agreement to the extent of the lava field as defined in the Brown NZ Ltd report (ref to Appendix 1). So that except for the explosion crater (distinguished by the wetland area), the extent of the geological feature subject to the ONF classification is located outside of the proposed plan change area.
4.0 LANDSCAPE REVIEW
4.1 Since the site analysis was undertaken by Brown NZ Ltd in 2012, the local area has undergone significant change. The most notable being the development of the Stonehill Business Park within the central and northern parts of the proposed plan change area and the establishment of the Auckland South Corrections Facility immediately to the east of the ONF.
4.2 Although these have not directly had any physical effect on the ONF area, they have altered the context within which it sits significantly. They have also had some effect on the visual catchment and consequently the connection and coherence that the site has with the surrounding landscape, in particular, other volcanic sites. The recent industrial and infrastructural development has also had a significant influence on the character and quality of the landscape setting. At the time the Brown NZ Ltd report was prepared the wider area was still predominantly open grassland (refer to aerial photograph in Appendix 1).
4.3 The worksheet used in the landscape evaluation of Site 138 - Matakuturua Lava Field (ONF 93 in the AUPOP), has value ratings from low to high against the various considerations contributing to the ‘Evaluations Factors’. Numerous of these have a high ranking distinguished by a grey tone. Others do not. So it is unclear how the final ‘Outstanding’ score (marked in red) in the overall evaluation is determined, assuming all, or most factors would need to be high to achieve the highest combined ranking. The only explanation it would seem is that more emphasis has been placed on some factors over others. However, this is not clear.
4.4 On examining the schedule accompanying the report of other sites identified as ONFs in the Auckland Region, it also brings into question the value placed on the Matukuturua lava field in a regional context. The following are extracts from the introduction of the Brown NZ Ltd report:
4.5 Within the report relevant case law is highlighted as to determine whether or not landscape or features are outstanding:
27.02.2019 11 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS .. “It is still necessary to stand back and ask the question does this landscape or feature stand out among other landscape or features of the district?” 4 (Waireka Valley Preservations Society inc vs Holcim NZ Ltd (C058/2009)
4.6 The report then goes on to say:
“The point is important, as it emphasizes the need to look at the subject landscape or feature in a much wider context and determine whether it is also “… conspicuous, eminent,… remarkable…” (WESI p. 48)5 in determining whether or not it merits ONL or ONF status.
4.7 A selection of other sites identified in the report as ONF’s in the Auckland region include:
No Name
4 Browns Island /Motukorea
Various Great Barrier Island (Various sites)
32 Little Barrier Island
37 Meola Reef
48 Mt Eden/Maungawhai
62 One Tree Hill /Maungakiekie
210 Pakari Beach
250 Lion Rock
4.8 Clearly these are all very significant and even ‘Iconic’ landscapes of the region. Almost without exception all of the sites listed above as ONF’s are distinctive, highly legible, very expressive of formative processes, and have landscape characteristics that set them apart within the region. Although Matukutureia the Matukuturua lava field have significant landscape value, I do not consider that from a landscape perspective that these features are comparable to the other sites listed in the schedule. Indeed, I consider that they should be placed one column within the Significant Natural Feature category. This includes sites and features, which although significant, are somewhat less noteworthy, such as:
4 Ibid pg 3 para 4 5 Whakatipu Environmental Society Inc and Others v Queenstown Lakes Dist Council C180/99(2000) NZRMA59
27.02.2019 12 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
No Name
1 Auckland Domain Volcano
23 Hamlins Hill
93 Three Kings Volcano (Te Tatua a Riukiuta)
94 Waiatarua Swamp
120 Pukekohe East Tuff ring
147 Pukeiti Scoria Cone and Lava Field (Puketapapa)
4.9 The description of Matukuturua lava field in the Classification Summary Table of the Brown NZ Ltd report is as follows:
Highly significant lava field remnant associated with Matukutureia scoria cone which is a local landmark. Highly significant cultural landscape. Includes wetland area and numerous well documented archaeological sites. High amenity landscape values. 6
4.10 With regard to this description, although Mutukutureia is a prominent local landmark it has been significantly compromised by quarrying activities which have affected the integrity of the landform. It is certainly not a landform that compares with the other Maunga recommended for ONF status in the report. Similarly, the remnant wetland is not really a landscape feature that elevates the status of the site in landscape terms into the same realm as other ONF’s. Also, the landscape amenity values associated with the site /feature are also inferior in comparison generally. Consequently, although not evident from the scoring in the worksheet, it would appear that the geological and associative values of the site have skewed the overall rating. The geological evaluation prepared by Professor Cronin confirms that the Matukuturua lava field is of geological significance. There are considerable historical associations with the site as discussed, highlighted below and illustrated in Figure 6:
“Matukurua had a garden system based on major linear land divisions radiating from the cone to the perimeter of the volcanic fields. The land between the two cones had interconnecting land units, showing that it was a single overall system. The cones were sites of fortified settlements, but there were also unfortified residential clusters in the fields surrounding the cones, in among the gardens. The radiating land units were marked by large stone and stone-and-earth walls, some over 1 km long and generally 25- 50m apart. The linear land units were subdivided by internal linear and cross walls and alignments. The main boundary walls appear to have been in use over a long period, indicating that the plots in between were re-used. Each major land unit contained a variety of forms of garden related to topography and soils. Radiocarbon dates (calibrated) indicate that the gardens were in existence at least as early as AD 905-1425 and were probably used until the 18th century (Bulmer 1987c)”.7
6 Brown NZ Ltd 2012. pg 24 7 Harris. D.R (Editor) 1989. Foraging and Farming - The Evolution of Plant Exploitation. Routledge Library Editions: Archaeology. pg 693
27.02.2019 13 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Figure 6. Historic Illustration Looking North from Puhinui Creek to Matukutureia and Matukuturua Lava Field (By: Chris Gaskin)
4.11 However as well as simply recognising the specific values of the identified geological sites, a main objective of the Brown NZ Ltd report was on the expression of the landscape values as demonstrated below:
“The purpose of this evaluation is also to map these highly valued landscape areas as Outstanding Natural Features (as opposed to geological heritage features). This mapping recognises the differences between mapping underlying geological features and the mapping of the landscape expression of those features. For example while a geological feature boundary may follow patterns of base rock material such as a lava flow this may also include surface areas of residential development, which cannot be regarded overall, as representing outstanding natural landscape values”.8
4.12 So, although the site clearly has significant geological importance the expression of this in landscape terms that most people can relate to are not conspicuous and certainly not comparable to most of the other site and features listed as ONF’s in the region above. Consequently, based on Environment Court guidance on such matters I consider that in the context of the Auckland region that the Matukuturua lava fields should be considered Significant rather than an Outstanding Natural Feature, particularly with the changes that have occurred in the local area over the last decade. I also consider that this is reinforced
8 Brown NZ Ltd 2012. pg 2 para 6
27.02.2019 14 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS by the worksheet for the site which tends to skew the significance of the site based on geological and associative values at the expense of landscape.
4.13 It is apparent that the Brown NZ Ltd report was used to inform the decision making process as part of the preparation of the AUPOP, and that other considerations have influenced the final outcome. This is reinforced by the fact that within the AUPOP there are a number of sites that are identified as ONF’s which were not recommended for ONF status in the Brown NZ Ltd report, and more relevant to this site, that the boundaries of ONF 93 are not consistent with those recommended in the report. Regardless, it is clear that the Matukuturau lava field is still of such significance that it warrants protection. The question then turns to whether the same can be said about the area currently mapped as part of the ONF that extends into 79 McLaughlin Road and is described by Professor Cronin as Area 1.
Area 1
4.14 As noted earlier, Professor Cronin’s geological assessment does not consider Area 1 to be of “direct value as a primary geological feature because this area either had no original volcanic cover, or those parts that did are highly modified with much of the material removed”.
4.15 The Outstanding Natural Features Overlay Schedule (Schedule 6) of the AUPOP describes the lava field as follows:
The Matukuturua lava field is one of the best - preserved lava fields remaining in the Auckland volcanic field and is an important representative example of the volcanic lava terrain that underlies much of the city. The lava field erupted from McLaughlin’s Mountain (Matukutūreia) volcano. Most of the original scoria cone and a section of the lava field in the north have been quarried away. Associated with the lava field is a section of tuff ring remaining from the early phases of the eruption. A small wetland has formed behind the ridge of tuff.
4.16 Based on this description it is apparent that the value of the site for the AUPOP decision makers focuses on its geological origins. The objective of the Brown NZ Ltd report was to identify the landscape values of significant geological sites to determine which should be considered ONF. As is apparent from Professor Cronin’s assessment, Area 1 has no significant geological values and does not form part of the Matukuturua lava field, the edge of which is clearly defined by the western edge of the crater lake (as delineated in the Brown NZ Ltd report). It follows on therefore that it should not be included within ONF 93.
4.17 Additionally Area 1 has limited landscape value. It is an open modified landscape largely consisting of rank grassland and scattered scrubland. Consequently, there is no legitimate justification also in landscape terms for it to be included within ONF 93.
27.02.2019 15 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ONF Evaluation Factors
4.18 In Table 1 of Professor Cronin’s report he evaluates Areas 1 and 2 using factors prescribed in Policy B4.2.2(4) of the AUPOP. These factors are largely consistent with those used in the Brown NZ Ltd report. Table 1 from this report is inserted below. I rely on his findings in relation to geological matters. Otherwise, I concur with his general findings. Where appropriate I have inserted my comments relating specifically to landscape matters. (refer to text in bold)
Table 1: ONF 93 and Evaluation Factors in Policy B4.2.2(4) Evaluation Factors: Area 1 Area 2
Policy B4.2.2(4)
a The extent to which the No contribution is possible This site represents a landform, feature or because the area was not phreatic eruption crater – geological site contributes covered by volcanic deposits, or also known as a steam- to the understanding of the if it was, they have subsequently driven explosion. It is likely geology or evolution of the been removed/quarried. representative of a type of biota in the region, New “near-miss” eruption, Zealand or the earth, where magma rises close including type localities of to the surface but does not rock formations, minerals break through. This feature and fossils. is very similar in character to the nearby Puhunui craters and they may be related. The feature thus contributes new insights to the understanding of the Auckland Volcanic Field.
b The rarity or unusual Not applicable – there are no The feature is one of four nature of the site or unusual features of this area. known features in this feature. general vicinity (including the three Puhinui craters), and there are other similar Similarly, there is nothing features associated with notable or distinctive about some of the larger this modified area from a volcanoes of the field (e.g., landscape perspective. around the One Tree Hill complex).
As a landscape feature the wetland is a distinctive feature of the local area contributing both to natural values and the landscape amenity locally.
c The extent to which the Not applicable – there are no The feature is one of four feature is an outstanding original surfaces or deposits similar explosion craters in representative example of representative of the volcanic the vicinity (including the
27.02.2019 16 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Evaluation Factors: Area 1 Area 2
Policy B4.2.2(4)
the diversity of Auckland's history. Puhunui Craters). It is well natural landforms and preserved, and therefore geological features. has value as an example site of the diversity of Auckland’s natural geological features.
d The extent to which the The area lies adjacent to the This crater is associated landform, geological Matukuturua Lava flow and with the Matukuturua Lava feature or site is part of a crater and thus allows flow and is possibly also recognisable group of viewshafts to these. associated with the Puhinui features. craters. The site/landform provides no noticeable sense on To anyone but connection or continuity with specialists in geology other volcanic features of the and related disciplines, it wider area. is unlikely that the wetland would be recognised as a crater that forms an integral part of the local volcanic landscape.
e The extent to which the The wider landscape includes The crater is well landform, geological industrial estate and reserve preserved, particularly its feature or site contributes land. This forms a boundary eastern and southern to the value of the wider between the two areas and an margins. It is currently landscape. open green area. readily observed from McLaughlin’s Road, but is The landform is noticeably poorly visible from the modified. Although it is Puhinui reserve to the currently undeveloped and south. Its unmodified parts provides some relief and (east and south rims) are contrast to the surrounding valuable components of large scale industrial the wider landscape. development as well as a transition to the harbor edge, Because of its size and it has no specific attributes location, the crater that make it distinct or valued wetland is not a in landscape terms. prominent feature of the wider landscape. On a local scale however it contributes considerably to natural character and ecological values, as well as providing visual diversity and enhanced landscape amenity.
f The extent of community There is currently no public There is currently very little association with, or public access to this site, but a public community association or
27.02.2019 17 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Evaluation Factors: Area 1 Area 2
Policy B4.2.2(4)
appreciation of, the values walkway adjoins part of the area public appreciation of the of the feature or site. and it is visible from the Puhinui values of this particular reserve. It currently allows site, outside a few viewshafts to the Matukuturua specialist geologists. It has Lava flow and Matukutūreia mainly been overlooked, cone. with the main values associated with the unmodified Matukuturua lava field to the east of the site.
g The potential value of the There is no potential value This site has some feature or site for public identified that could be potential value for education. explained to the public. description as an aspect of the volcanic history of Auckland, but would require substantial documentation and development because, in its current state, the unique features of the site are very difficult to observe and explain to the non- specialist. Exposure of some of the deposits could add value to public explanation efforts.
In its current form, the crater is unappreciated and, from a public/non expert perspective, non- unique. There are ways in which development could actually enhance this feature. Some ideas include the following, ranging from passive to invasive options:
• Relocating the property boundary (with compensation to land owner) to encompass the crater margin and removing the fence line through the crater. • Return of vegetation to natural state on the site. • Exposure of part of the breccia rim (e.g., during adjacent development) to preserve an outcrop of the
27.02.2019 18 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Evaluation Factors: Area 1 Area 2
Policy B4.2.2(4)
breccia – along with providing public access/visibility. This is essentially the only way in which the unique features of the site can be explained/demonstrated to the public.
h The potential value of the No potential – there are no It is unlikely that this site feature or site to provide volcanic history features. There will provide more additional understanding of are no unique sedimentary information on the history the geological or biotic geology features, which can be of the Auckland Volcanic history. better viewed at other localities. Field because it appears that no fresh magma has erupted here. Only with invasive investigation (drilling, excavation) could there be any potential for geological investigation.
With crater-fill drilling there could be possible biotic history additions to the Horrocks et al., 2007 study from crater-fill sediment.
i The state of preservation of This site is completely disturbed. The site is largely the feature or site. unmodified on its eastern and southern margins, with the western margin modified by earthworks and quarry spoil, and parts of the north modified by earthworks.
j The extent to which a There are no famous geologists There are no associations feature or site is associated nor geological industries of this type for this site. with an historically associated with this site. important natural event, geologically related industry, or individual involved in earth science research.
k The importance of the It is for mana whenua to It is for mana whenua to feature or site to Mana comment. comment. Whenua. Although not located within The eastern part of the
27.02.2019 19 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Evaluation Factors: Area 1 Area 2
Policy B4.2.2(4)
The Sites and Places of crater lies within The Significance to Mana Whenua Sites and Places of Overlay depicted in the Significance to Mana AUPOP maps (refer to Figure Whenua Overlay 7), the whole coastal area depicted in the AUPOP associated with Matukuturua maps. As noted the lava field was historically a wider area is of significant site for Maori significance to Mana occupation and gardening. Whenua due to the So despite its modification, it historic use and is still likely to be of some associations with the value because of its proximity area. and historical associations.
Figure 7. Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay Source: AUPOP
27.02.2019 20 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 There is no doubt that the Matukuturua lava field is a significant natural feature, both in geological and landscape terms. It is also important with respect to cultural values and historical associations. However, because of its degraded landscape values and limited exposure, and based on guidance from Environment Court decisions, it is a matter of contention as to whether it is worthy of ONF status in a regional context. Even so, it is certainly of enough significance to justify its preservation and protection.
5.2 The geological evaluation prepared by Professor Cronin clearly defines the western extent of this geological feature associated with the ONF as being the western edge of the explosion crater (wetland). The landscape expression of the change in underlying geology can quite clearly be seen on site and on aerial photographs. This delineation is also consistent with that recommended in the Brown NZ Ltd report which for some reason unknown, was not carried over into the AUPOP.
5.3 From the evidence presented it is clear that the characteristics and attributes of the southern part of the proposed plan change area are inconsistent with the values required to constitute ONF classification, and as such, I consider that it should be removed from ONF 93.
Jason Hogan
(NZILA) Registered Landscape Architect
Director - LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
27.02.2019 21 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Appendices
27.02.2019 22 LA4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3DJH 6LWHODQGIRUPQXPEHU /RFDWLRQ 6LWH/DQGIRUP'HVFULSWLRQ )URP³,QYHQWRU\DQG0DSVRI,PSRUWDQW*HRORJLFDO6LWHVDQG/DQGIRUPV,QWKH$XFNODQG5HJLRQDQG.HUPDGHF,VODQGV´-$.HQQ\ % +D\ZDUG)LUVW(G ³2XWVWDQGLQJ*HRORJLFDO)HDWXUHV 7DEOH´GUDIW$XFNODQG5HJLRQDO3ROLF\6WDWHPHQW6FKHGXOH$5&
7KH0DWXNXWXUXDODYDILHOGLVRQHRIWKHEHVWSUHVHUYHGODYDILHOGVUHPDLQLQJLQWKH$XFNODQGYROFDQLFILHOGDQGLVDQ LPSRUWDQWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHH[DPSOHRIWKHYROFDQLFODYDWHUUDLQWKDWXQGHUOLHVPXFKRIWKHFLW\7KHODYDILHOGHUXSWHG IURP0F/DXJKOLQ¶V0RXQWDLQ 0DWXNXWXUHLD YROFDQR0RVWRIWKHRULJLQDOVFRULDFRQHDQGDVHFWLRQRIWKHODYDILHOG 0F/DXJKOLQV5RDG LQWKHQRUWKKDYHEHHQTXDUULHGDZD\$VVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHODYDILHOGLVDVHFWLRQRIWXIIULQJUHPDLQLQJIURPWKHHDUO\ SKDVHVRIWKHHUXSWLRQ$VPDOOZHWODQGKDVIRUPHGEHKLQGWKHULGJHRIWXII *HRORJLFDO,QYHQWRU\$VVHVVPHQWRI,PSRUWDQFH 1DWLRQDO6LJQLILFDQFH
,QWULQVLF*HRORJLFDO9DOXHV *HRSK\VLFDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI SK\VLFDO ODQGVFDSH YDOXHV IURP ³,QYHQWRU\ DQG 0DSV RI ,PSRUWDQW *HRORJLFDO 6LWHV DQG /DQGIRUPV ,Q WKH $XFNODQG 5HJLRQ DQG .HUPDGHF ,VODQGV´ -$ .HQQ\ % +D\ZDUG )LUVW (G ³2XWVWDQGLQJ *HRORJLFDO )HDWXUHV 7DEOH ´ GUDIW $XFNODQG 5HJLRQDO3ROLF\6WDWHPHQW6FKHGXOH$5& (YDOXDWLRQ)DFWRUV .H\9DOXHV LQGLFDWLRQRINH\JHRORJLFDO YDOXHV
&RQWULEXWLRQWRDQXQGHUVWDQGLQJ NQRZOHGJHRI$XFNODQG¶VJHRPRUSKRORJLFDODQGJHRORJLFDO KHULWDJH IRUPDWLYHQDWXUDOSURFHVVHV
.LZL7DPDNL5RDG ([WHQWWRZKLFKWKHVLWHRUODQGIRUPLVDQRXWVWDQGLQJRUUHSUHVHQWDWLYHH[DPSOHRIWKH 5HJLRQ¶VQDWXUDOJHRORJLFDOIHDWXUHVRUJHRPRUSKRORJLFDOV\VWHPV
5DULW\RIVLWHODQGIRUPRUUDULW\RITXDOLW\RIVLWHODQGIRUP
7KHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKHVLWHODQGIRUPFRQWULEXWHVWRWKHXQGHUVWDQGLQJHGXFDWLRQDQG DSSUHFLDWLRQRIZLGHUJHRORJLFDOSURFHVVHVJHRPRUSKLFV\VWHPVRUODQGVFDSHPDWUL[
3K\VLFDOLQWHJULW\RIVLWHODQGIRUP VWDWHRISUHVHUYDWLRQ
,QWULQVLF*HRORJLFDO9DOXHV /RZ«««««««+LJK
/DQGVFDSH9DOXHV 3HUFHSWXDO $VVRFLDWLYH (YDOXDWLRQ)DFWRUV .H\9DOXHV LQGLFDWLRQRINH\ODQGVFDSH YDOXHV 0DQXNDX+DUERXU 3HUFHSWXDO9DOXHV 9LVXDOFRKHUHQFHXQLW\LQWHJULW\RIVLWHODQGIRUP &RPPHQW 6LJQLILFDQWRSHQVSDFHDUHD IUDPHGE\XUEDQLQGXVWULDODUHDVWRWKHHDVWDQGRSHQVSDFHWR WKHZHVW6WURQJYLVXDOFRKHUHQFHEHWZHHQODYDILHOGVDQGOHVVPRGLILHGDQGPRGLILHGVFRULDFRQH 0 100m 400m DUHDV
$HVWKHWLFYDOXHH[SUHVVLYHQHVVDQGOHJLELOLW\RIVLWHODQGIRUP &RPPHQW /DYDILHOGVKLJKO\H[SUHVVLYHRIKHULWDJHQDWXUDOXQGHUO\LQJJHRORJ\DQGKHULWDJHODQG XVHV&RQHUHPQDQWUHWDLQVDKLJKGHJUHHRIDHVWKHWLFDSSHDOGHVSLWHH[WHQVLYHPRGLILFDWLRQRIRULJLQDO %RXQGDULHVRISUHYLRXVO\LGHQWLILHGJHRORJLFDOIHDWXUH VRXUFH $XFNODQG&RXQFLO FRQHSURILOHGXHLQODUJHSDUWWRYHU\GLVWLQFWLYH PRGLILHG VFXOSWXUDOS\UDPLGDOVWHSSHGIRUP
0 100m 400m 800m 2XWVWDQGLQJ1DWXUDO)HDWXUH%RXQGDU\ 7KHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKHIHDWXUHFDQEHSHUFHLYHGRIDVQDWXUDO HJORZLQWUXVLRQRIKXPDQ /2&$7,21 LQIOXHQFHSUHVHQFHRIEXLOGLQJVDQGVWUXFWXUHVODQGIRUPPRGLILFDWLRQHWF &RPPHQW ([WHQVLYHPRGLILFDWLRQWRRULJLQDOVFRULDFRQHKRZHYHUVWLOOUHWDLQVLQWHJULW\DVHOHYDWHG /$1'6&$3((9$/8$7,21 ODQGIRUPQDWXUDOIHDWXUH $VVRFLDWLYH9DOXHV 2XWVWDQGLQJ 1DWXUDO )HDWXUH +LJKO\ VLJQLILFDQW QDWLRQDO ODYD 3XEOLFSURILOHRIVLWHODQGIRUPLQFOXGLQJVKDUHGDQGUHFRJQLVHGYDOXHV ILHOGUHPQDQWDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHPRGLILHG0DWXNXWXUHLD VFRULD &RPPHQW 0DWXNXWXUHLDVFRULDFRQHUHPQDQWLVDKLJKO\GLVWLQFWLYHDQGHDVLO\UHFRJQLVDEOHODQGPDUN FRQH ZKLFK LV D ORFDO ODQGPDUN DQG IHDWXUH RI WKH VRXWKHUQ /DYDILHOGVVLJQLILFDQWRSHQVSDFHUHVRXUFH 'R&,ZL DGMRLQLQJ3XKLQXL5HVHUYH $XFNODQG 9ROFDQLF ILHOG +LJKO\ VLJQLILFDQW FXOWXUDO ODQGVFDSH .QRZQ+LVWRULFDODVVRFLDWLRQVLQUHODWLRQWRVLWHODQGIRUP ,QFOXGHVZHWODQGDUHDDQGZHOOGRFXPHQWHGDUFKHRORJLFDOVLWHV &RPPHQW +LVWRULFDODVVRFLDWLRQV DQGUHPQDQWV±GU\VWRQHZDOOV ZLWK0F/DXJKOLQIDPLO\DQGIDUPDV ZHOODVPRUHUHFHQWTXDUU\DFWLYLWLHVUHODWHGWRFRQH +LJK DPHQLW\ YDOXHV DQG DHVWKHWLF DSSHDO RI PRGLILHG VFRULD FRQHDQGDPRGLILHGQDWXUDOODQGIRUPUHPQDQWZLWKVWURQJYLVXDO $VVXPHGYDOXHWRWDQJDWDZKHQXDRUNQRZQWDQJDWDZKHQXDDVVRFLDWLRQV &RPPHQW +LJKO\VLJQLILFDQWFXOWXUDOODQGVFDSH
FRQQHFWLRQVWRRWKHUVRXWKHUQDQGPRUHGLVWDQWFRQHVDVZHOODV WKHZLGHU0DQXNDX+DUERXU 3HUFHSWXDODQG$VVRFLDWLYH/DQGVFDSH9DOXHV /RZ«««««««+LJK
2YHUDOO/DQGVFDSH(YDOXDWLRQ
6,7(12
/DQGVFDSH(YDOXDWLRQVRI *HRORJLFDO6LWHVDQG/DQGIRUPVRI $XFNODQG 0DWXNXWXUXD/DYD)LHOG DQGWKH,GHQWLILFDWLRQRI 2XWVWDQGLQJ1DWXUDO)HDWXUHV ,668('0$<