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 Topic 081b Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical areas)
AND
IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF NATHAN TE PAIRI ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL
Hatfields Beach 1 (Seaforth Ltd) Hatfields Beach 2 (Objective Holdings Limited) Hatfields Beach 3 (Kauri Orewa Limited - ‘Chin Hill’ precinct)
29 February 2015
1. SUMMARY
1.1 I have reviewed the submitters' evidence with regards to the proposed precincts being Hatfields Beach New 1, Hatfields Beach NEW 2 and Hatfields Beach NEW 3.
1.2 Having regard to that evidence, I maintain my position as stated in my evidence-in- chief (EIC) and do not support the inclusion of the proposed precincts into the PAUP.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 My name is Nathan Te Pairi. I have the qualifications and experience set out in my EIC dated 28 January 2016.
2.2 I confirm that this rebuttal statement of evidence has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014.
3. SCOPE
3.1 This evidence should read alongside the rebuttal statements on behalf of the Council
Stephen Brown - Landscape;
Shona Myers - Ecology;
Tim Segedin on behalf of Auckland Transport (AT) - Traffic Safety
Andre Stuart of Watercare (WSL) – Infrastructure; and
Carol Stewart: Parks and Recreation.
3.2 My EIC collectively responded to the submissions and commented on each of the proposed precincts where relevant. This rebuttal statement will adopt a different approach and will address four key themes that are common to all the precincts.
a) Regional Policy Statement;
b) The most appropriate zone – Rural Coastal;
c) ‘enhancement planting’ vs ‘restoration’ or ‘protection’ of SEAs; and
d) Public highway safety.
2
3.3 I also address the difference in the amended relief for each of the precincts in Section 6 of this Report.
3.4 In response to the evidence provided on behalf of Hatfields Beach NEW 1 (Seaforth) I have focused on the planning evidence of Jeffrey Brown. I have also read the evidence of the following persons:
Stephen Skelton: Landscape
Graham Usher: Ecology
Tom Basset: Stormwater
Don McKenzie: Traffic
Anthony Bryce: Civil engineering
3.5 In response to the evidence submitted on behalf of Hatfields Beach NEW 2 (Objective Holdings Ltd) I have focused on the planning evidence of Ms Kate Madsen. I have also read the evidence of the following persons:
Grant Dumbell: Ecology
Ian Vincent: Visual landscape
Daryl Hughes: Traffic
3.6 In response to the evidence provided on behalf of Hatfields Beach NEW 3 (Chin Hill) I have focused this evidence on the planning evidence of Jeffrey Brown. I have also read the evidence of the following persons:
Paddy Baxter: Urban Design
Stephen Skelton: Landscape
Graham Usher: Ecology
Tom Basset: Stormwater
Don McKenzie: Traffic
Anthony Bryce: Civil Engineering
Andrew Linton: Geotech
Rob Greenaway: Parks and Recreation
3
Coastal Engineering: Thomas Shand
Duncan McNab: Farming Economic Viability
Stormwater: Tom Bassett
Internal Roading: B Black and S James
3.7 I have also considered a separate piece of evidence from Mark Bellingham on behalf of Alan Wiltshire (6738) who appears to support the Countryside Living zone but seeks an amendment to either rural subdivision provisions or the Seaforth Precinct.
4. UPDATE: Amended relief
Hatfields Beach NEW 1 (Seaforth) and Hatfields Beach NEW 3 (Chin Hill)
4.1 As noted in my EIC1, representatives submitted revised precinct proposals to the Council for the Seaforth and Chin Hill precincts just before evidence exchange on 26 and 25 of January 2016 respectively (see Attachment C of the planning evidence Mr Jeffrey Brown for Seaforth and Chin Hill). No detailed information was provided with the revised provisions.
4.2 The key differences between the revised precinct proposals and those considered in my EIC for each of the precincts are outlined and considered in Section 6 of this Report.
Hatfields Beach NEW 2
4.3 On 27 January 2016 representatives on behalf of Objective Holdings Limited (OHL) advised that Council’s evidence had not considered the detailed precinct provisions for provided to the Council on 28 August 2015 (see Attachment B of Kate Madsen’s planning evidence for OHL). No detailed supporting material was provided with these provisions.
4.4 This is an administrative error on behalf of the Council.
4.5 On 3 February 2016 Council officers (including myself) met with the submitters and advisors to understand more about the more detailed provisions provided on 28 August 2015.
1 EIC Nathan Te Pairi: Proposed precincts in Hatfields Beach for Topic 081b - 28/1/2016
4
5. COMMON THEMES
The Regional Policy Statement (RPS)
5.1 Mr Brown considers that the Hatfields Beach/Waiwera area should be retired from farming and be zoned Countryside Living (CSL) to accommodate the proposed Chin Hill and Seaforth precincts.
5.2 On this basis, he considers the bespoke provisions (as amended) for the Chin Hill and Seaforth precincts can be accommodated at Hatfields Beach.
5.3 In addressing the wider, policy framework for the Chin Hill and Seaforth precincts, Mr Brown focuses his discussion on Part II of the RMA, the NZCPS, and the general objectives for the rural zones. He also refers to forgone subdivision opportunities in the Auckland Council (Rodney Section) District Plan that are based on environmental benefits in exchange for in-situ subdivision rights.
5.4 While he addresses part of the RPS Chapter 8.3 (rural subdivision), he does not consider the relevant provisions in full and in particular, Policy 6 of 8.32 which specifically relates to the management of rural lifestyle subdivision through the CSL zone.
5.5 Further, Mr Brown does not consider the proposed CSL zoning and the proposed precincts alongside RPS Chapter 4.3.2 (natural character) or RPS Chapter 7.1 (coastal environment) in the context of the Hatfields Beach/Waiwera area.
5.6 This approach reflects an oversight. As noted in my EIC3, the RPS should be fully considered and in my view, is especially relevant to the consideration of the precinct proposals given their localised scale and rural subdivision purpose.
The most appropriate zone - Rural Coastal
5.7 In my view, the most appropriate planning response is to apply the Rural Coastal zone to the entire area. The main planning reasons for this are:
(i) identification of ONL44 (see Figure 1 below) over much of the Hatfields
2 ‘Manage the location, scale and extent of areas identified for Countryside Living;
…(d) maintain and enhance landscape, rural character and amenity values’
3 [8.4 to 8.5] EIC Nathan Te Pairi – 28/1/2016 5
Beach/Waiwera area.
(ii) The extent of the coastal environment (informed by the relevant NZCPS related policies in the RPS) in relation to ONL44; and
(iii) landscape evidence provided by Stephen Brown4 that outlines the particularly significant landscape and coastal characteristics of the Hatfields Beach/Waiwera area and, its inability to ‘absorb’ any significant rural-residential development.
Figure 1: Relevant overlays in the Hatfields Beach area
5.8 Overall, I consider the Rural Coastal zone to be the most appropriate way to give effect to the outcomes of the RPS and in particular, the protection of ONL 44 and the natural character of the coastal environment at Hatfields Beach.
5.9 This is consistent with the Panel’s Interim Guidance for zoning5 which requires the overall impact of rezoning to be consistent with the RPS.
4 Primary and Rebuttal Evidence of Stephen Brown for Topic 016 (RUB – North) and, Topic 081a for the Hatfields Beach. 5 31 July 2015 6
5.10 Mr Brown also proposes a consequential amendment6 to the PAUP for the Hatfields/Waiwera alongside the application of the CSL zone. The amendment requires that subdivision outside of a precinct be considered as a non-complying activity.
5.11 I do not agree with the consequential amendments proposed by Mr Brown. In my view, it is fundamentally based on enabling the CSL zone to support the precincts which is a ‘proposal-led’ or ‘back to front’ response to incorporate the excessive intensity proposed by the Seaforth and Chin Hill precincts.
5.12 Moreover, a placed-based amendment does not fit within the overall framework of the PAUP and would ultimately undermine the integrated management of ONL44, the coastal environment and the wider landscape values identified by Stephen Brown through the Rural Costal zone.
5.13 For above reasons, I consider the Rural Coastal zone is the appropriate zone (and starting point) from which to consider the specific precincts proposals.
Enhancement planting Vs restoration or protection of existing SEA’s
5.14 Mr Brown considers7 I have made an error in stating that enhancement planting in exchange for subdivision rights has not been rolled over into the PAUP.
5.15 However, I disagree with Mr Brown. The focus of the Council’s current policy approach is to enable in-situ rural subdivision in exchange for the restoration and protection of existing SEAs, not enhancement planting. This is reflected in Policy 14 of Chapter C.6 (subdivision) which states;
‘Rural subdivision results in the protection and restoration of identified Significant Ecological Areas and natural features’
5.16 In Topic 0578, Shona Myers for Auckland Council supported amendments to the rural subdivision provisions to provide for limited subdivision rights in exchange for restoration planting where she stated:
‘contiguous restoration planting which will provide buffering existing areas of native forest and indigenous vegetation. This will improve ecological corridors and connections and the ecological viability of existing SEA’s’
6 [2.36 - 2.37] Evidence of J Brown for Chin Hill dated 15/2/2016 7 [10.37] Ibid 8 [8.15] Rebuttal evidence of Shona Myers for Topic 011 (RPS: Rural) 12/6/2015 7
5.17 Table 8b of Chapter C.6 (subdivision) provides for in-situ subdivision rights for the restoration and/or protection of an existing SEA to achieve the above outcome.
5.18 The rule provides for 1 site (in-situ) per 5ha of restoration or protection planting to a maximum of three sites as a restricted discretionary activity. This rule is intentionally limited to avoid the inappropriate proliferation and dispersal of development.
5.19 Further limitations apply that require;
(i) in-situ subdivision is avoided within an ONL9; and
(ii) in-situ subdivision to be located outside of the area of protection or restoration planting10.
5.20 Mr Brown on behalf of Seaforth and Chin Hill has also addressed11 enhancement planting and other methods in the operative Rodney Plan and compares these with what can be achieved under the PAUP.
5.21 The PAUP represents a new direction for the management of rural land. The PAUP provisions are the correct basis (and starting point) from which to consider the merits of a precinct, rather than the operative plan provisions.
5.22 Mr Brown also considers12 that it is irrelevant whether or not a method is favoured by Council in the consideration of alternative options for the proposed precincts.
5.23 As explained in my EIC, the s.32 process for the rural subdivision provisions discarded ‘enhancement planting’ as a reliable method of achieving ecological outcomes. Shona Myers notes13 that enhancement planting has less ecological value than planting associated with restoration or protection of the SEA’s.
5.24 As such, I have considered less weighting to the ‘enhancement’ planting opposed to the buffering and connective planting associated with the restoration and protection of existing SEA’s.
Hibiscus Coast Highway (HCH) – Public Safety
5.25 Tim Segedin on behalf of AT has reviewed the traffic evidence for the precincts provided by Don McKenzie (Chin Hill and Seaforth) and Daryl Hughes (OHL) (see Attachment B).
9 Policy 44 Chapter C.6 (subdivision) 10 Rule 2.3.3.7 (b) of Chapter C.6 (subdivision) 11 [various between 2.7 to 2.26] Evidence of J Brown for Seaforth - 25/2/2015 12 [6.3] Evidence of J Brown for Chin Hill 15/2/2016 13 [5.1 to 5.5] Rebuttal evidence of Shona Myers 24/2/2016 8
5.26 HCH is a limited access highway meaning any new accesses must be approved by AT. With regards to the proposed precincts, Mr Segedin raises the following public safety concerns:
(i) The two eastern accesses for the Seaforth precinct do not provide adequate visibility on HCH;
(ii) The northern most access for the Hatfields Beach NEW 2 precinct is not suitable; and
(iii) All approved access points for the sites should include deceleration due limited visibility on the HCH.
6. AMENDED RELIEF SOUGHT BY SUBMITTERS
Hatfields Beach 1 NEW: (Seaforth)
6.1 I have reviewed the revised precinct provisions submitted to the Council on 25 January 2016. I note the following key differences between what was assessed in my EIC and the revised precinct proposal14:
Reduction from an estimated 70-90 to 54 lots; and
more detailed ecological protection and enhancement provisions.
6.2 The key matters to consider are:
(i) visual impacts of the precinct’s proposed intensity on the natural character of the coastal environment and ONL44; and
(ii) the likely ecological benefits of the proposed planting.
Intensity, landscape values and coastal character
6.3 The precinct area contains 1715 existing dwellings (some of which are minor house hold units) on 20 sites (resulting in a density of 1 house per of 3.5ha).
6.4 The Countryside Living zone proposed by Mr Brown would propose an average density of 2ha16, while the revised precinct proposes a further intensification to an average of 0.88ha.
14 [6.1 and Appendix C]: Evidence of J Brown for Seaforth dated 15/1/2016 15 [2.2] Ibid 16 Table 10 of Chapter C.6 (subdivision): ‘Rodney South’ 9
6.5 I agree with Mr Brown, as does Stephen Brown, that the site features some rural living characteristics. However, in my view, applying a CSL zone would result in ‘spot- zoning’17 and would wholly disregard the wider values of ONL44 and, the natural character of the coastal environment over the land (see Figure 1 above) which is more appropriately managed through the Rural Coastal zone.
6.6 As noted in the Environment Court Decision in 201018, the location of the proposed precinct features an usually high density for what was anticipated by the former East Coast Rural zone (now zoned as Rural Coastal in the PAUP).
6.7 While Mr Brown appears to question the relevance of some parts of the 2010 decision but support others19, I consider the relevant aspects of the decision are as follows:
(i) The EC observed the unusually high density of development on the Hatfields North Peninsula; and
(ii) The ‘high rural’ density of the Hatfields North Peninsula is not a valid basis for considering a Countryside Living zone.
6.8 As noted in the landscape evidence by Stephen Brown, the proposed further intensification of the Hatfields Beach peninsula20 would exacerbate the already high intensity of the peninsula by ‘chopping up’ this coastal landscape to an even greater degree.
6.9 In responding to the landscape evidence provided by Stephen Skelton on behalf of Seaforth Ltd, Stephen Brown considers21 the following:
(i) the amount of development from the Hatfield’s beachfront is limited at present and the Peninsula’s south facing edge is acutely sensitive to further encroachment by even relatively small-scale development;
(ii) views of the site are possible by boat users - development on the eastern coastline will alter the intrinsic landscape and natural character; and
(iii) development adjacent to the Hibiscus Coast Highway would be clearly visible to passing motorists (see Annexure 12 of Stephen
17 Not generally supported by the Panel’s Interim Guidance on zoning (31/7/2015) 18 Decision No. [2010] NZEnvC 141 19 [4.4] Evidence of J Brown for Seaforth dated 15/1/2016 20 [66] EIC of Stephen Brown for Topic 081a (Rezoning and Precincts) - 29/1/2016 21 [57-63] Rebuttal evidence of Stephen Brown for Topic 081a (Rezoning and Precincts) - 29/2/2016 10
Brown’s rebuttal evidence on the precincts).
6.10 According to Stephen Brown, the development "…would have a very appreciable impact on impressions of the wider Hatfields landscape"22 and "…would greatly diminish the current predominance of natural / rural elements and patterns across the peninsula, further degrading much of the landscape that physically abuts, and visually frames, ONL44."23
6.11 From a landscape perspective, Stephen Brown further considers that there is potential for limited development on the peninsula with a very specific re-vegetation programme, micro-siting of individual and controls over building design and appearance.
6.12 However, he considers the current CSL proposals do not adequately address identified landscape and natural character concerns he has referred to. I agree with Mr Brown and overall, I consider the proposed intensity of the Seaforth precinct to be excessive in this sensitive coastal location.
Ecological benefits
6.13 Shona Myers on behalf of the Council has reviewed the revised Seaforth provisions and considers24:
(i) Case-by-case subdivision will not provide contiguous and connecting habitat to the coastal forest (SEA) and will not provide certainty or a comprehensive mitigation outcome;
(ii) The overall intensity of 54 sites will ultimately undermine the quality of the replanting and render any ecological benefit to be of low value;
(iii) Most of the planting is ‘enhancement’ type planting.
6.14 I agree with Shona Myers. For the reasons outlined above I consider the proposal would result in limited ecological benefits across the site as well as limited ‘protection’ or ‘restoration’ of the existing SEA.
Summary
6.15 In my view, the ecological benefits across the majority of the site (i.e. within Native Vegetation Area 2) would be limited and, would not address landscape and natural
22 [62] Ibid 23 [63] Ibid 24 [6.17 to 6.22] Rebuttal Evidence of Shona Myers dated 24 February 2016 11
character concerns identified by Stephen Brown.
6.16 Overall, I consider the revised provisions for the Seaforth precinct would result in an excessive intensity in an inappropriate location with limited ecological benefits.
Hatfields Beach 2 NEW: Objective Holdings Limited (OHL)
6.17 As noted in Section 4 of this Evidence I did not consider the detailed provisions of the precinct provided by OHL to the Council in August 2015 as I did not receive them.
6.18 However, having now reviewed the detailed precinct provisions, I note the following key differences between what I considered in my EIC and the detailed precinct provisions:
(i) increase in density from 150 to 320 units;
(ii) Additional 20ha of land to the north east of the precinct to be considered as an environmental benefit25 total of 47(ha)26; and
(iii) retains the Single House zone.
Rural Urban Boundary – Topic 016
6.19 Kate Madsen on behalf of OHL considers27 that the precinct ‘holds the door open’ for future expansion of the nearby rural villages of Hatfields and Waiwera. In her view, Hatfields Beach
6.20 The ‘urban element’ (i.e. the Single House zone) of the precinct has already been addressed in my EIC on Topic 016 (RUB) and by others28. This was noted in my EIC on the proposed precincts29.
6.21 In summary, the ‘urban element’ was not supported for the following reasons:
(i) It is a non-contiguous extension to the RUB and would be contrary to Objective 2 and Policies 1 and 1a of RPS Chapter B2.1.4 which seek to avoid non-contiguous urban growth (including villages and settlements) outside the RUB;
25 [3.1 – bullet point 3] Evidence of Kate Madsen for OHL dated 15/2/2016 26 In my EIC, I incorrectly stated26 the total amount of planting would be 141 (ha). 27 [5.2.5] Evidence of Kate Madsen for OHL dated 15/2/2016 28 Primary and Rebuttal Evidence of Stephen Brown for Topic 016 (RUB: North) for the Hatfields Beach area 29 [10.24 – 10.25] EIC Nathan Te Pairi: Te Pairi: Proposed precincts in Hatfields Beach for Topic 081b dated 28/1/2016 12
(ii) The inclusion of the Hatfields Beach, or the precinct would not lead to any greater efficiencies that can be better achieved elsewhere;
(iii) Not supported by Watercare30; and
(iv) Avoids encroachment into an area identified with significant landscape as noted in the primary RUB landscape evidence of Stephen Brown.
6.22 However, OHL did not file evidence in response to my EIC on Topic 016 and it appears they have missed their opportunity to respond.
6.23 Moreover, I do not support the ‘spot-zoning’ proposed by the precinct. I do not consider the Hatfields Beach New 2 precinct enables the efficient provision of development capacity land supply for residential growth.
Landscape impacts and ONL44
6.24 Ian Vincent on behalf of OHL has provided a visual impact assessment of the proposed precinct. In response, Stephen Brown considers31;
(i) the conventional subdivision would read as an isolated pocket of urban development; and
(ii) the proposed development would sit ‘in front of’ the ONL when viewed by local and regional commuters along the HCH.
6.25 He also notes that the protection of bush within ONL44 and restoration of the wetland at the foot of the subject site has significant appeal, this does not obviate the reality of this degradation: the proposed housing area would have a significant and adverse impact on ONL44.
6.26 I agree with Stephen Brown and consider that despite the land being located outside ONL44 as it appears on a map, the proposed residential development will significantly impact on ONL44 as appreciated on the ground, particularly from the HCH.
Infrastructure - Watercare Services Limited (WSL)
6.27 Kate Madsen states that WSL32 have agreed to a potential connection to an upgraded
30 Joint Primary and Rebuttal Statements from Watercare on Topic 016 (RUB: North) for the Hatfields Beach area 31 [43-52] Rebuttal evidence Stephen Brown – 29/2/2016 32 [3.1 – bullet point 8] Evidence of Kate Madsen - 15/2/2016 13
wastewater network pipe between Waiwera and Hatfields Beach.
6.28 However, for the avoidance of doubt, WSL has confirmed33;
‘There is currently no network capacity to service undeveloped areas at Hatfields Beach at the present time, and no plan to build new network capacity within Watercare’s current planning horizon. While Watercare is considering the option of conveying wastewater from Waiwera to Hatfields Beach, this option does not provide an opportunity to provide additional connections at Hatfields Beach itself.
Ecological benefits
6.29 Shona Myers on behalf of the Council has also reviewed the detailed precinct provisions on behalf of Objective Holdings Ltd and considers34:
(i) The planting proposed in the northern part of the site would restore and enhance a buffer and ecological connections with scattered native trees, and could provide moderate ecological values if connections to the SEA in Waiwera Scenic Reserve were achieved; and
(ii) The enhancement planting proposed in the southern part of Sub precinct C is likely to have low benefits as it will not be restoring or protecting existing SEAs.
Summary
6.30 However, overall, I do not consider the ecological benefits or potential amenities would justify a departure from the RPS provisions relating to Urban Growth and my EIC on the RUB.
6.31 I also consider the precinct does not align with the Panel’s Interim Guidance on the RUB35 which seeks to enable the efficient provision of development capacity of land supply for residential growth. I do not support the inclusion of the Hatfields Beach NEW 2 precinct in the PAUP.
33 Addressed in the EIC and Rebuttal Joint Statement of WSL for Topic 016 (RUB: North) 34 [6.26 to 6.32] Rebuttal Evidence of Shona Myers dated 24/2/2016 35 31 July 2015 14
Hatfields Beach 3 NEW: Chin Hill
6.32 Figure 5 of My EIC attempted to show the extent of the proposed Chin Hill precinct but is incorrect. The correct extent of the precinct is shown below.
Figure 2: Correct Location of Chin Hill Precinct (black line) in relation to ONL44, SEA’s and the extent of the coastal environment (red line)
6.33 Mr Brown on behalf of Chin Hill considers that ONL44 covers part of the site. However, it appears clear to me that ONL44 covers most of the site (approx 90%). 23ha of the site (approx 13%) is covered by an SEA (south west corner) that links into a wider SEA also known as RAP21.
15
6.34 I have reviewed the revised provisions for the Chin Hill precinct. I note the following key differences between the precinct proposal in my EIC and the revised precinct proposal36:
(i) reduction from 81 lots to 58 lots as a non-complying activity;
(ii) more detailed provisions around ‘securing’ enhancement planting;
(iii) changes to the precinct provisions to address height and appearance; and
(iv) a proposed public access way through the site from Hatfields Beach to Weranui Road (to the north).
6.35 The key matters to consider are:
(i) visual impacts of the precinct’s proposed intensity on ONL44; and
(ii) the extent of the ecological benefits of the proposed planting provisions.
(iii) the value of the public access way.
Scale and intensity and ONL44
6.36 Stephen Brown has responded to the revised proposal for the Chin Hill precinct and the landscape evidence of Stephen Skelton. Stephen Brown considers that despite the revised proposals, the proposed man-made environment would not enhance the ONL44’s landscape values or natural character. He remains of the view that the Chin Hill proposal would;
Fragment the forest tracts, bush and open slopes that are so central to delineation of ONL44;
Minimal detail can be relied on to ensure mitigation of all significant effects on ONL44;
The changes on ONL44 would be irreversible; and
The whole of the catchment would lose its naturalness and become ‘domesticated’.
6.37 Having reviewed the precinct provisions, I note that it is unclear exactly how the precinct
36 [6.1 and Attachment C] Evidence of J Brown for Chin Hill dated 15 February 2016. 16
will manage any ‘integration’ with ONL44.
6.38 However, it is clear from the evidence provided by Stephen Brown that the scale and intensity of development proposed by the Chin Hill precinct will have an irreversible effect on ONL44.
6.39 Mr Brown on behalf of Chin Hill accepts37 that there will be some effects on ONL44. But it is not clear what the magnitude of those effects will be or how these effects will be addressed as the revised provisions do not specifically mention ONL44.
6.40 However, as noted by Stephen Brown38 the objectives and policies in RPS Chapter B4.3.2 of the PAUP promote the approach of avoiding not managing adverse effects on such landscapes – in line with the ‘King Salmon’ decision.
6.41 Mr Brown on behalf of Chin Hill considers39 that the significant ecological benefits of the proposal would justify development which may have some effects on the ONL. He therefore considers that these ecological benefits warrant an ‘exceptional circumstance’ and therefore, this response (presumably to override the overlay) is appropriate.
6.42 As discussed below in the evidence of Shona Myers, I consider the limited ecological benefits do not justify the irreversible effects on ONL44 as suggested by Stephen Brown, or align with the avoidance approach outlined by Stephen Brown above in 6.40.
Ecological Benefits
6.43 Shona Myers does not support the assertion by Mr Brown and Graham Ussher for Chin Hill that the proposal will result in regional or nationally significant benefits as outlined in her primary and rebuttal evidence.
6.44 One of the main reasons is that the proposed planting plan will be fragmented by cluster development and roads (clusters 5 and 6) and therefore, high value connections to the existing SEA will not be created and, would not provide any significant buffering
6.45 She considers that most of the planting is ‘enhancement’ quality because:
(i) siting of 58 lots and roads amongst the clusters ultimately undermines the ecological value of the replanting; and
(ii) the proposed protection of smaller areas are fragmented, and are also removed from the adjacent SEA;
37 [4.22 – Criteria 5] Evidence of J Brown for Chin Hill – 15/2/2016 38 [60] EIC Stephen Brown 29/1/2016 39 [4.22 – Criteria 5] Evidence of J Brown for Chin Hill dated 15 February 2016 17
6.46 Therefore, Shona Myers does not consider the creation of an ecological ‘mainland island’ is likely as is the case with Tawharanui, Wenderholm and Shakespear regional parks.
6.47 I agree with Shona Myers that, in the short term, the revised Chin Hill precinct proposal is likely to provide some limited ecological benefits which are likely to be contained within the sites.
6.48 She notes the ecological assessment in Attachment B of Dr Ussher’s evidence is based on the provisions for enhancement planting and bush quality and wetland assessment in the operative Rodney District Plan.
6.49 In paragraph 6.15, she considers the longer term ecological benefits where she states:
‘As discussed in my EIC for this topic the planting proposed is likely to take a long time to establish, and the benefits on such a large scale into pasture are likely to be low.’
6.50 For the reasons outlined above, I consider the ecological benefits arising from the proposal limited and therefore, do not justify the overall scale and intensity of the revised Chin Hill precinct provisions.
Public access way
6.51 Ms Carol Stewart on behalf Auckland Council has provided a response to the evidence of Mr Greenaway for the proposed shared walkway/cycle way at 203 Weranui Road.
6.52 She has visited the site and considers that development of this track is a low priority for the Council for the reasons set out in Attachment A of this statement. Overall, she considers that further information would be required to understand more about its benefits.
6.53 As such, I consider the proposed shared walkway/cycleway could provide some limited social benefits but is of a low priority.
Summary
6.54 While the benefits of the proposed planting and the public access way are noted, I consider the revised provisions for the Chin Hill precinct would result in an excessive intensity in an inappropriate location resulting in irreversible effects on ONL44.
18
Evidence of Mark Bellingham on behalf of Alan Wiltshire (6738)
6.55 The evidence:
(i) Supports the CSL zone and the Seaforth Precinct;
(ii) Seeks a provision in the Seaforth Precinct or the PAUP40 to enable the subdivision of cross lease titles into fees simple sites on this land.
Response:
6.56 Mr Wiltshire was a submitter on Topic 057 (rural subdivision) where cross-lease subdivision was previously considered. Mr Wiltshire’s submission did not seek a precinct.
6.57 However, as Mr Bellingham points out, cross-lease subdivision is a non-complying activity. Having read his evidence, I do not consider there is a ‘special’ placed-based reason to depart from the PAUP’s Auckland-wide rural subdivision provisions.
6.58 The submission does not state whether the representatives of Seaforth are aware of Mr Bellingham’s suggestion to include the cross-lease provisions in the proposed precinct.
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 As noted in my EIC, I consider the intensity proposed by the precincts would be contrary to the RPS which seeks to protect ONL44 and to direct rural subdivision to the Countryside Living zone.
7.2 In the case of the proposed precincts and having regard to the evidence of Shona Myers, I consider the ecological benefits are likely to be at best, ‘localised’ or limited to the site and overall, I do not consider exceptional circumstance exist that would justify the intensity and scale of the precincts in the various locations.
7.3 While there might some opportunity to enable a limited degree of rural subdivision, I consider the excessive intensity of the revised proposals (promulgated by an inappropriate zoning) in this sensitive location would ultimately undermine the proposals.
7.4 I do not support the revised proposals for the three proposed precincts at Hatfields Beach.
Nathan Te Pairi
29 February 2016
40 Rule 5.2.3.3.10 19
Attachment A – Parks and Recreation
20
Memo 24 February 2016 To: Nathan Te Pairi, Planner, Planning – North/West cc: Nicola Terry, Parks and Open Space Specialist, Asset Planning From: Carol Stewart, Principal Policy Analyst, Parks and Recreation Policy Unit
Subject: Proposal for a shared walkway/cycleway at 203 Weranui Road, Upper Waiwera
Proposal
The statement of evidence provided by Mr Rob Greenaway is proposing a 1.8m wide route for runners, walkers, cyclists to travel 7km off-road from Hatfields Beach Reserve to Weranui Road with a return loop within the site. Kauri Orewa Ltd has stated that it will build and maintain the track in perpetuity. However, Mr Greenaway proposes that maintenance and access to the trail should be secured in perpetuity through some legal mechanism.
The proposal also requires a bridge (and probably requires additional parking) from Hatfields Beach Recreation Reserve. Other bridge and culvert crossings are likely to be needed within the Chin Hill site.
Strategic context
Expanding the network of walkways and trails is a priority for Auckland Council. In the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013, creating a regional trail network is listed as a priority. In the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024, key initiatives include developing the network of walkways, trails, bridleways and cycle ways across Auckland and around the coast.
Under the Bike Facility Plan for Auckland Region 2013-2021, priorities for development of mountain biking are focused on existing parks, and include the Dome Valley as a priority in the northern area.
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board do not currently have a greenways plan for the area. This is being developed and is due for completion in late 2016.
The Te Araroa Trail is a continuous 3,000 km walking track from Cape Reinga to Bluff. The Te Araroa Trust (and its eight regional trusts) develop, maintain and promote the trail over both private and public land. The Te Araroa Trail from Puhoi to Hatfields Beach (north to south) is currently via canoe down the Puhoi River (Puhoi to Waiwera), and walking at low tide from Waiwera to Hatfields Beach. While the proposal at Chin Hill could potentially complement the route from Puhoi to Hatfields Beach by contributing a section to an all-tide route, this would occur if access were provided from the end of the proposed track to the Puhoi Township. There is no information provided on how this route may be connected and how many private properties this would cover.
Comments
If constructed, I believe that the proposal would provide a local opportunity. Given the steep topography of the site and the narrow width of the track proposed, it would be most likely be suited to mountain biking and less suited for development as a shared pathway.
At this preliminary stage of investigation, I consider the development of this track as a low priority for council. This is because: • There are other walking tracks in the local area (Alice Eaves Bush, Wenderholm Regional Park, Mahurangi Regional Park, Metro Park, Te Ara Tahuna Estuary cycle and walkway) • Mountain bike priorities in the area focus on the Dome Valley • The proposed track width is considered too narrow for a shared pathway • The benefits of creating a link to the Te Araroa trail are unclear, given the proposed track does not directly connect through to Puhoi township.
From the information provided, it is unclear what the extent of the costs and benefits of the proposed track are. Before making a further assessment the following information would be required: • The feasibility of the track (cost of on-going maintenance, suitability for a range of different users) • Who the intended users are (mountain biking, walking, compatibility of sharing the track given the steep terrain) • Suitability of the track width for the intended use as a public asset (the proposed track width is 1.8m wide, Auckland Transport proposes shared path widths at a minimum of 3m, and I recommend legally secured access widths to be between 6 to 10m wide to ensure room for users and maintenance access) • Land stability in the area and whether this impacts long term viability of the proposal • Whether or not the proposal would be a park or an Auckland Transport asset • Whether or not there is an expectation that the proposed track development will be in lieu of development contributions.
Page 2
Attachment B – Auckland Transport
21 Memorandum edin ltd
To: Alastair Lovell From: Tim Segedin Date: 26 February 2016 Subject: Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Rezoning: Hibiscus Coast Highway
BACKGROUND Eden Limited has been asked by Auckland Transport to review transport evidence provided in support of proposed rezoning of three parcels of land adjacent Hibiscus Coast Highway north of Hatfields Beach in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The three sites are referred to as Chin Hill, Seaforth Peninsula and Hatfields Beach 2.
ROAD CONTEXT Hibiscus Coast Highway is classified as a Strategic Arterial Road in the Operative District Plan and as an Arterial Road in the PAUP. Hibiscus Coast highway is a limited access road, which means that it can only be accessed from authorised crossing points approved by the Road Controlling Authority. Any change in crossing place layout, use, location or subdivision of property must be approved by Auckland Transport. In addition to this restriction Hibiscus Coast Highway is also identified as a heavy and oversize vehicle route.
SUMMARY The three main accesses proposed for the Seaforth Peninsula site should be consolidated to provide one shared access. The northern most access on the Hatfields Beach 2 site is not suitable for the proposed level of development as it is located on a steep grade, has limited visibility and is adjacent an overtaking lane. All approved access points for the three sites onto Hibiscus Coast Highway should include deceleration lanes for main road left turners and channelised right turn provision. The level of through traffic and turning traffic combined with the limited visibility due to bends in the road require a high level of access provision.
CHIN HILL SITE Evidence has been submitted by Mr Don McKenzie on the traffic impacts of development of up to 58 rural lifestyle household lots within part of an area of land known as Chin Hill adjacent to Hibiscus Coast Highway. In summary Mr McKenzie has recommended: The upgrading of the existing driveway before it is used as an access to the site. Specifically he has recommended that the bank opposite the driveway, on the inside of the bend be cut-back to achieve a minimum sight distance of 205m for all movements, including the right turn in movement. That the driveway be re-orientated to connect to Hibiscus Coast Highway at, or near to, a right angle.
Memorandum edin ltd
That the northern access point be decommissioned and the relocated/re-oriented southern driveway be adopted for future development at Chin Hill. That an auxiliary left turn solution should be employed at the intersection. The auxiliary left turn solution requires the construction of a deceleration lane to allow the left turn vehicles to safely slow for the turning movement into the site while out of the main through traffic flow.
It is my opinion that these recommendations are essential to the safe operation of the intersection. It should be noted that the earthworks required to achieve sufficient visibility at the site will need further investigation to ensure feasibility. Mr McKenzie has also recommended: That the basic right turn treatment of seal widening of the carriageway occur in the vicinity of the site access to achieve additional carriageway space for driveway entry and exit manoeuvres.
It is my opinion that this is insufficient and a channelised right turn into the site should be provided. Mr McKenzie has reviewed traffic volume data from March 2015 which shows weekday peak hour volumes are in the region of 513 vehicles per hour (“vph”) in the morning peak hour and 693vph in the evening peak hour. Based on these flows if there are 5 right turn movements into the new development in the PM peak a channelised right turn would be required (Austroads warrant). Mr McKenzie has estimated that only 3 right turns into the site will be generated during the peak hour therefore only requiring a basic right turn treatment. The three right turning vehicles is a result of his assumptions that 90% of site traffic using the Hibiscus Coast Highway driveway will follow a left-in, right out pattern with only 10% operating as right-in, left-out. He has also estimated that in the afternoon peak hour 34% of trips would be outbound and 66% inbound. Given the low right turn trigger, slight variations on these assumptions could increase the right turn trip generation and require a channelized treatment. Austroads also states “If a turn is associated with other geometric minima, consideration should be given to the adoption of a turn treatment of a higher order than that indicated by the warrants.” I consider that given the high speed nature of the site, the restricted visibility, the location of the access on a bend and the volume of through vehicles, that a channelised right turn treatment should be allowed for on Hibiscus Coast Highway.
SEAFORTH PENINSULA SITE Evidence has been submitted by Mr Don McKenzie on the traffic impacts of development of up to 54 dwellings in the Seaforth Peninsula. In summary Mr McKenzie has recommended: The upgrading of three Seaforth Peninsula driveways on Hibiscus Coast Highway to provide a minimum of 214m of sight distance (Safe Intersection Sight Distance) to the north and south. Seal widening of the carriageway in the vicinity of the accesses to cater for and ensure safe movement of turning vehicles.
Memorandum edin ltd
In his evidence Mr McKenzie has identified three main access points, two of which currently have substandard visibility. The two eastern access points would require significant earthworks and clearing to achieve suitable visibility, a large portion of which would be outside the road reserve, limiting the ability for the road controlling authority to maintain and ensure it stays clear in the future. Hibiscus Coast Highway is classed as a limited access road and as such it is considered that the proposed accesses for the intensified development should be consolidated. As discussed above the two eastern accesses have visibility restrictions. In addition the Hatfields Beach 2 site has proposed an access on the northern side of the road, situated approximately 80m west of the proposed Seaforth Peninsula access point at 688 Hibiscus Coast Highway. It is proposed that the access at 650 Hibiscus Coast Highway be used as the main access point to the site and no future development be allowed to use the two eastern access points. Also based on the peak hour traffic volumes on Hibiscus Coast Highway, the high speeds, and restricted visibility it is considered that any access for intensified development should be treated as an intersection and provided with channelised right turn and auxiliary left turn treatments.
HATFIELDS BEACH 2 SITE Evidence has been submitted by Mr Daryl Hughes on the traffic impacts of development of up to 320 residential lots within Hatfields Beach 2. In summary Mr Hughes has recommended: That two new intersections be created with Hibiscus Coast Highway to provide access to the site. That Hibiscus Coast Highway in the vicinity of both driveways be locally widened to accommodate right turns into the site. For the eastern access a basic right turn widening treatment has been recommended and at the southern access a channelised short right turn treatment would be required. Both accesses would require a short auxiliary left turn treatment. Sightlines to the north of the eastern driveway are improved through moving the driveway to the south, or cutting back an earth bank that restricts sightlines.
It is my opinion the southern access point could be implemented as recommended. However the northern access is located adjacent an overtaking lane which significantly increases risk of crashes and should be avoided. This access also has visibility constraints which will be difficult to alleviate given the bend and bank to the north.