Comment on the Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village Fast Track Application 1

Comment on the Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village Fast Track Application 1. Contact Details

Please ensure that you have authority to comment on the application on behalf of those named on this form.

Organisation name (if relevant) Auckland Council

*First name Ian

*Last name Smallburn

Postal address Private Bag 92300, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1010

* Mobile phone 027 675 2975 *Work phone n/a

*Email (a valid email address [email protected] enables us to communicate efficiently with you) Please cc: [email protected]

2. *We will email you draft conditions of consent for your comment about this application

I can receive emails and my email address is I cannot receive emails and my postal address is

✓ correct correct

3. Please provide your comments on the Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village Application Auckland Council’s comments on the Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village (KCCRV) are broken down into the following categories, which the council considers to be most relevant to this proposal: • Land use • Residential amenity values • Urban design • Landscape • Traffic (including Auckland Transport comment) • Development engineering (including comments by Watercare and Healthy Waters)

Land use The application size falls within the Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). The MHU zone seeks to enable a variety of housing types at higher densities, including integrated residential developments such as retirement villages. Accordingly, the council supports the principle of a retirement village on the site.

Residential amenity values Due to the exceedance of the height standard for the zone (approximately twice the permitted 11 metre height standard), adverse effects on the neighbouring residents to the south and east of the site may be greater than that reasonably anticipated from a development within the MHU zone. Building bulk, visual dominance (including a change to the existing landscape), and shading effects are considered to be of greatest concern. During the processing of the resource consent application there was a difference in expert opinions in terms of the level of these effects as experienced by neighbouring properties. The council considers that it will need to be determined whether these effects on neighbours are acceptable in the context of the MHU zone.

Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village Page 3 of 5 Urban Design The council’s urban design specialist considers the proposal to be an appropriate outcome for the site. Outstanding concerns remain in relation to building B06 and the bulk related impacts to the adjoining neighbours along the south- eastern interface. The council’s urban designer recommends that consideration is given to reducing the overall height and bulk of building B06 to reduce the potential visual dominance effects.

Landscape The council’s landscape specialist considers that the proposed development would be generally consistent with the intent of the MHU zone, although would result in low adverse landscape character effects, and up to high adverse visual amenity effects on a localised environment. Notwithstanding this, the landscape specialist acknowledges any redevelopment of the site within the limits of the MHU zone would also result in a dramatic change to the existing site character, given the site’s current undeveloped state.

Traffic effects The council’s traffic engineer advises that the proposed quantum and design of on-site car parking (and bicycle parking) complies with the requirements of the MHU zone. As per AUP requirements, a second loading space should be provided within the development (which could be secured through a consent condition). The traffic that is anticipated to be generated by the development upon occupation has been assessed as being acceptable and would not generate any adverse effects upon the surrounding road network.

The council’s traffic engineer has raised concerns regarding the vehicle access from Kohimarama Road, particularly due to the proximity of the site to neighbouring schools, and the safety concerns associated with right-turn vehicle movements. To mitigate potential adverse effects upon road safety, a change in bollard operation time (from 7:00 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 6:00 pm) to restrict movements into and out of the Kohimarama Road access during the complete periods of peak hour traffic is recommended. It is also recommended that there should be no right turn out of the Kohimarama Road entrance.

Auckland Transport (AT) have advised that should their recommended consent conditions be imposed or adopted that the potential adverse effects on the roading network would be suitably avoided or mitigated. AT also recommend prohibiting right-turns from vehicles exiting the Kohimarama Road entrance.

Development engineering (including comments from Watercare and Healthy Waters) Watercare have advised the council that the proposed wastewater network extension and the wastewater capacity for the site is generally acceptable. The site can be provided with adequate water supply (including firefighting capacity).

Auckland Council’s GeoMaps show potential floodwaters affecting the site and there are a number of overland flowpaths within the site. Healthy Waters have advised that, subject to their recommended conditions being imposed or adopted, that the potential flooding effects upon the proposed development can be effectively managed and controlled.

The council’s development engineer advises that the proposed earthworks are acceptable and that any potential effects can be mitigated by consent conditions. It is recommended that that further geotechnical assessment is undertaken in relation to the earthworks at the eastern boundary as the information currently provided is insufficient. It is recommended that an updated geotechnical report is secured through a consent condition.

Summary Council planning officers consider the proposed development to be generally consistent with the provisions of the MHU zone, although there are concerns regarding the height of some elements of the development. It is considered that this exceedance of the 11-metre permitted building standard has the potential to cause adverse residential amenity effects in terms of building bulk, visual dominance and shading effects. Council planning officers consider that the Expert Consenting Panel should determine whether these effects are acceptable in the context of the MHU zone.

Orakei Local Board It should be noted that the Orakei Local Board (OLB) do not support the proposed development in its current form. The OLB’s comments are included with this response.

Further information and technical memos In addition to the summarised information above, the following technical memos are provided as part of this response: a) Planning considerations (prepared by Sandy Hsiao, Senior Planner) b) Urban design (prepared by Sheerin Samsudeen, Principal Urban Designer) c) Landscape (prepared by Ainsley Verstraeten, Principal Landscape Architect) d) Traffic (prepared by Sarishka Gandi, Senior Traffic Engineer) e) Auckland Transport (prepared by Jason Drury, Senior Development Planner) f) Development Engineering (prepared by Kuanjin Lee, Development Engineer) g) Healthy Waters (prepared by Maree Gleeson and Mark Iszard) h) Watercare (prepared by Tarso Luiz dos Santos Girio, Development Engineer)

Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village Page 4 of 5 i) Orakei Local Board comment

It is noted that the above memos were prepared specifically in response to the fast-track application, although may rely on earlier assessment that was undertaken at resource consent stage. The technical memos prepared in response to the previous resource consent application (reference BUN60353138) were provided to the EPA on 24 March 2021.

Consent conditions Should the Panel be minded to grant consent, the council refers to the recommended conditions contained within the specialist memos provided to the EPA on 24 March 2021.

It is also recommended that the Panel refers to the council’s ‘Consent Conditions Manual’ for standard conditions which may be appropriate for this development. The Consent Conditions Manual can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/regulations/consent-conditions-manual.

The council would like to have the opportunity to further comment on the draft conditions prior to any decision being issued.

Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village Page 5 of 5 Asset Owner / Specialist Response

From: Jason Drury, Principal Development Planner, Auckland Transport

Date: 25/02/2021

Overall Summary:

The application material has been reviewed by Auckland Transport in regard to:

• road and pedestrian safety effects at the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing; • road safety and operational effects at the Kohimarama Road / John Rymer signalised intersection; • road and pedestrian safety effects at the John Rymer vehicle crossing; and • construction and earthworks traffic effects

AT largely agree with the findings of the application material and conclude that should the additional recommended conditions of consent in attachment 1 be imposed or adopted, adverse effects on the road network will be suitably avoided or mitigated. The additional recommended conditions are relatively minor, are not inconsistent with the application material and would not require any considerable revision of the proposal. The conditions recommended will:

• ensure the proposal is given effect to in accordance with the application material • provide for vehicle and pedestrian inter-visibility at the vehicle crossings. • Signage, information and management requirements to make the proposed restrictions on movements from the Kohimarama vehicle crossing more effective.

This assessment relies on the findings of Road Safety Specialist Consultant Paul Schischka (full assessment Attachment 2), and Auckland Transport Operation Centre (full assessment Attachment 3).

Road safety

In summary the application proposes to mitigate or avoid road and pedestrian safety effects by the distribution of traffic movements over two vehicle crossings, restricting vehicle access before and after school periods of the adjacent Selwyn College and prohibiting right turn movements exiting the site from the Kohimarama Road access.

Kohimarama Road and John Rymer Place intersection road safety effects The proposal will result in an increase in vehicle movements turning right into John Rymer Place. The vehicle movements are by a filter turn, which has a known safety risk. The proposed increase in movements from the proposal will increase this risk.

Considering the overall small increase in the number of vehicles turning right into John Rymer Place as a result of the proposed activity, the reduced number of vehicles turning right as a result of providing the additional Kohimarama Road entrance option, the posted speed limit not exceeding the survivable speed for a side impact crash, and the lack of any historic crash records where crash severity was more than minor, AT agree with the applicants findings that adverse road safety effects in this location will be less than minor.

The applicants modelling has shown that the effect of the development on intersection capacity and level of service will not be to a degree where drivers are stretched to make unsafe manoeuvres.

Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing road safety effects AT agree that prohibiting right turns exiting Kohimarama is appropriate to ensure road safety effects are avoided. The John Rymer access will appropriately serve drivers wanting to travel in that direction and be served by traffic signals and a shorter route, as such signage should be sufficient to achieve this restriction to a high level of compliance. The plans that show the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing in the Commute report show a specific design to restrict right turn movements from the site. AT consider that the crossing should be designed to be a standard commercial crossing splay. A restrictive crossing design is not completely restrictive of a right turn movement, and could result in a potentially more unsafe manoeuvre, indicate a vehicle priority over pedestrians, and be restrictive and unsafe to larger vehicles using the crossing.

AT agree that for all other movements the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing will have sufficient sight lines, that there is no history of crashes entering or exiting property on this stretch of road, a median strip is available for traffic to safely wait to turn right into the site, and traffic generated will not result in a level of service that would result in unsafe movements. As such there will be less than minor road safety effects resulting from the proposed access to Kohimarama Road.

Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing pedestrian safety The proposed use of two access points will reduce the overall number of vehicles accessing from Kohimarama Road.

The applicant proposes to restrict the use of the Kohimarama Road access during peak school pedestrian times (entry and exit). AT consider that the proposed restrictions will be an effective way of mitigating but not eliminating the risk of a crash involving a pedestrian at the Kohimarama Road access during before and after school periods.

While the proposed automatic bollards and signage will not be totally effective in preventing vehicle access to the site during peak school pedestrian times, it will be effective for frequent visitors. If infrequent visitors mistakeningly do use the access they will not need to reverse onto the road due to the bollards being able to be lowered.

Outside of these times effects on pedestrians can be mitigated through a proposed speed bump within the site slowing traffic before crossing the pedestrian foot path.

John Rymer Vehicle Crossing The John Rymer Vehicle crossing is suitably provided in regards to visibility and dimensions so that it can operate safely.

Construction traffic The Construction traffic management plan outlined in the applicants Traffic Assessment Report prepared by Commute will be sufficient to manage traffic effects on the road network. Attachment 1: Auckland Transport Recommended Conditions of Consent

AT recommend that the conditions of consent proposed in the application material be imposed, and that the following additional conditions be imposed.

The additional recommended conditions are relatively minor, are not inconsistent with the application material and would not require any considerable revision of the proposal. The conditions recommended will:

Kohimarama visibility

1. The consent holder shall undertake trimming of vegetation to achieve a 90 metre visibility to the east and 150 metre visibility to the west from the Kohimiarama Road Vehicle Crossing for a person sitting in a car. The tree trimming shall be undertaken prior to occupation of the retirement village and at a regular period to maintain visibility thereafter. A suitably qualified transport specialist shall confirm that the above stated visibility is achieved and provide their confirmation to Council.

2. Within 2 metres to the east of the of the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing, fencing shall be visually permeable. Any new planting shall be 0.6 metres in height or less and be regularly maintained to not exceed 0.6 metres in height.

3. Any fencing between the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing and the site boundary with Selwyn College shall be visually permeable. Any new planting shall 0.6 metres in height or less and be regularly maintained to not exceed 0.6 metres in height.

Advice note Visually permeable fencing is to ensure vehicle and pedestrians have adequate inter-visibility for safety.

Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing restrictions

4. Vehicle right turn movements from the site onto Kohimarama Road via the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing shall be prohibited at all times.

5. The consent holder shall install signage in accordance with Figure 5-1 of the Traffic Assessment Report prepared by Commute (no right turns).

6. The consent holder shall install signage close to where the basement parking access connects to the internal road advising drivers who wish to travel south from the site to leave via the John Rymer Place access.

7. The consent holder shall install signage to indicate there is a detector loop to lower the automatic bollards. The consent holder shall install marking on the pavement surface indicating the detector loops position.

Advice note: The above condition is to ensure that drivers who are unfamiliar with the restrictions on the Kohimarama Road crossing entrance during peak school periods, and unfamiliar with the detector loop providing the bollards to allow for their mistake are made aware to avoid them attempting to reverse or turn around and exit the site from Kohimarama Road.

8. The consent holder shall install signage at the Kohimarama Road access in addition to those included in the application material advising an alternative access off John Rymer Place to enter the site during before and after school peaks.

Advice note: Suggested wording of signage ‘please use John Rymer entrance’.

9. All deliveries and visits by service vehicles (for instances rubbish removal) shall be scheduled outside or before and after school periods where possible.

Advice note The above condition is to reduce incidents of infrequent visitors such as delivery vehicles accessing the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing by mistake and also to reduce the use of the John Rymer intersection where it becomes the sole entry to the site.

10. The consent holder shall inform and educate residents, guests and services providers regularly visiting the village about access restrictions from Kohimarama Road and the reasons for them at the time they take up residence in the village / start providing services to the village.

11. The system of automatic bollards shall include a means to automatically log the times and dates when the bollards have been lowered in response to a vehicle being detected on the inductance detector loop and that this information be reported to the Council at six month intervals along with information what measures the village management is taking to reduce the number of vehicles entering during before and after school periods.

12. A speed bump on the Kohimarama Road access within the applicants site shall be installed to control speed of vehicles exiting the site. the details of the speed bump shall be subject to Council certification that it meets design standards.

John Rymer Vehicle crossing

13. Any fencing 2 metre either side of the proposed vehicle crossing on John Rymer Place shall be visually permeable.

Construction traffic

14. During the earthworks and construction period a traffic controller or site traffic management supervisor shall be present at any site access when vehicles are entering or leaving the site.

Proposed foot path works

Advice note The proposed upgrade works to the foot path would result in a length of 8m being at a grade of 12.5%. the AT Engineering Design Code Foot Paths Table 3 and TDM Chapter on the public realm state that between 10 and 12.5% grades must have a maximum length of 3m and require a departure from standards. This is for the benefit of mobility impaired users likely the elderly. The consent holder should consider extending the extent of works to regrade the foot path at the Kohimarama Road access to provide a grade compliant with AT requirements and achieve a greater level of accessibility for all people.

Attachment 2: Road Safety Specialist Paul Schischka PTM Consultant’s

Technical Memorandum

To: Sarah Jaff, AT Principal Development Planner – Central Jason Drury, AT Principal Development Planner – Central From: Paul Schischka, Principal Transportation Engineer, PTM Consultants Subject: PRR00036539 Ryman Kohimarama Fast Track Application Date: 22 February 2021 Revision 1

I have reviewed the documents for this application. I visited the site on 17 February 2021. This email contains my road safety engineering specialist advice.

This memo analyses the potential for increased crash risk on Auckland Transport’s (AT) road network as an effect of the development by location and the type of crash. This is followed by more general comments on the application documents provided.

Kohimarama Road Access

1. The two crash types which could potentially happen at the Kohimarama Road access are: a. A crash involving a vehicle entering or leaving the access and another vehicle on Kohimarama Road. b. A crash involving a vehicle entering or leaving the access and a pedestrian crossing the access.

Crashes Involving Two Motor Vehicles

2. Section 5.8.1 of Commute Transportation Assessment Report (TAR) states that at this access there is 90 m visibility to the east and 150 m to the west. I accept that this is adequate visibility.

3. The same section of the report also states that visibility is dependent on Ryman trimming the trees withing their site.

Recommendation: request a condition that Ryman trim the trees within their site to ensure that they do not reduce visibility for drivers using the Kohimarama Road access and that they undertake periodic maintenance of the trees to maintain visibility.

4. Section 5.1 of the TAR states that there will be a no right turn restriction on the exit from the Kohimarama Road access. I consider this appropriate. Drivers wishing to depart the site and travel south on Kohimarama Road can exit via the John Rymer Place access. This will be more direct, would allow them the benefit of the traffic signals when turning into Kohimarama Road, and will help to disperse traffic exiting the site.

5. The no right turn restriction is proposed to be implemented by installing a sign within the site (refer Figure 5.1 in the TAR). I recommend this is supplemented with additional signage within the site close where the basement parking access connects to the internal road advising drivers who wish to travel south from the site to leave via the John Rymer Place access. It is most critical that this signage is installed near visitor or short stay parking where drivers who are unfamiliar with the site are most likely to park.

Recommendation: request that the applicant install additional signage within their site where the parking areas connect to the internal road advising drivers who wish to travel south on Kohimarama Road from the site to exit via the John Rymer Place access.

6. Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the TAR include an analysis of the recorded crash history in the Waka Kotahi Crash Analysis System (CAS) for the 5-year period from 2014 to 2019 for the sections of Kohimarama Road outside Selwyn College and outside the site. These show no recorded crashes involving vehicles entering or exiting accessways to property adjoining the road. 1

Technical Memorandum

7. Right turn movements into the site are proposed to be permitted from Kohimarama Road. There is an existing flush median in this section of Kohimarama Road which vehicles waiting to turn right can wait on for a gap in the stream of northbound traffic.

8. Traffic modelling for the Kohimarama Road access in Section 7.4.1 / Table 7.6 of the TAR shows that 85th percentile queue lengths for vehicles right turning into the site range between 4.1 m and 6.7 m, depending on the time of day. This can easily be accommodated on the flush median.

9. Level of service for the right turn in is shown in table 7.6 of the TAR. The worst level of service (LOS) is C during the AM and PM peaks. This is acceptable and indicates relatively low delay. The table does not show LOS for the left turn movements however given the overall degree of saturation for the crossing shown in the table and the LOS for the right turn in I do not expect that these figures would indicate any issues with excessive delay if they were provided.

10. Overall, I accept that the risk of a crash involving vehicle turning into or out of the site at the Kohimarama Road access is a less than minor road safety risk.

Crashes Involving a Pedestrian and a Motor Vehicle

11. Section 3.1 of the TAR includes a description of pedestrian activity around the entrance to Selwyn College during before and after school periods. These relatively short periods represent the highest risk times for a crash involving a pedestrian.

12. To manage this potential conflict Section 5.2 of the TAR recommends automatic bollards be installed within the site which would raise and restrict access to the Kohimarama Road access during before and after school periods. Signs would be provided both within the site and at the access to warn drivers not to enter when the bollards are operating (refer Figure 5.1).

13. The bollards are located within the site far enough from the access that drivers who enter during school hours are unlikely to be tempted to reverse out.

14. The TAR shows that an induction loop (in-road device to detect vehicles) is to be installed on the north side of the bollards is proposed to allow drivers who do enter during the restricted hours to continue into the site without reversing back out onto Kohimarama Road. No loop will be provided on the south side of the bollards.

15. I am in general agreement with the TAR and the Peer Review that the automatic bollard solution proposed will be effective as a crash mitigation measure (mitigation is however not elimination). It will completely prevent vehicles from exiting the site via the Kohimarama Road Access during before and after school periods. It will not totally effective in preventing vehicles from entering the site. I expect that village residents, staff, and frequent visitors will generally comply with the restriction but infrequent visitors will in many cases enter the site from Kohimarama Road regardless. The proportion of frequent to infrequent visitors to the site is not stated in the TAR, but I expect that they will comprise the majority of vehicle entering the site.

16. The TAR does not provide a clear description of the rationale behind the location and operation of the automatic bollards. There is no mention of other options being considered.

17. Section 4.3 of the Flow Transportation Specialists Peer Review Report (‘the peer review’) gives more information about the reasons for the automatic bollards, but it is still relatively brief. This section states that access for couriers and infrequent visitors from Kohimarama Road Access needs to be provided for during before and after-school periods “so that safety issues are not created on the road

Technical Memorandum

network” and “restricting vehicles from entering the site (at the property entrance) during school peak hours is in our view not a desired outcome as it potentially presents safety issues”.

18. There are no details given of the safety issues which the Peer Reviewer wants to avoid but they could include reducing the number of U-turn movements on Kohimarama Road near the school or reducing the volume of traffic making a filter right turn at the John Rymer Place / Kohimarama Road signalized intersection.

19. A northbound driver who is intending to turn left into the village from Kohimarama Road but is prevented from doing so by the school peak access restrictions could potentially use the site’s vehicle crossing to turn around before heading back south on Kohimarama Road toward the John Rymer Place access. This would entail reversing out onto the arterial, which would be more dangerous than simply entering the site.

20. On Page 7 of the Peer Review there is a reference to an Option C in relation to the bollards. The other options where not discussed or referred to in either the TAR or Peer Review report, however it is apparent that the solution proposed is the product of some analysis and discussion between Commute and Flow.

21. Normally I would recommend a Section 92 request be made for the applicant to provide more information on the nature of the safety issues they are concerned about and the analysis they have undertaken, but this is not possible with a fast track application.

22. Section 5.2 of the TAR states that Selwyn College and the Ministry of Education have been consulted about the proposed solution and have given positive feedback on it. It is not stated whether they were presented with other options, and if they were whether positive feedback was provided on alternatives.

23. An obvious alternative to the automatic bollards would be to install an automatic sliding gate which would be closed in before and after school periods and which would in a position where is it very visible to drivers attempting to turn into the site from Kohimarama Road. A large sign and prominent could be affixed to the front of the gate advising drivers that the access is closed during before and after school times and directing them to the John Rymer Place access. This gate would not have a system to allow it to open for drivers attempting to turn in during then school peak period.

24. The position of this gate would need to be carefully considered. It would be most visible on the boundary, but this would mean that if any driver does try to enter the site when it is closed they would be stopped across the footpath (which would be dangerous for pedestrians) and in the case of larger vehicles (for instance the 9.2 m rubbish truck which services the site according to Section 6 of the TAR) the vehicle would extend back into the traffic lanes.

25. To avoid this type of problem it is normal practice to require that any access gate is located within the site far enough back that the largest vehicle which regularly enters the site can be stopped between the gate and the boundary. This would place the gate just over 9.2 m from the boundary which would make it less visible to drivers attempting to enter, especially for drivers turning left in. The topography of the site means the internal road falls away from the road and this would also make the gate less visible.

26. It is likely that some drivers would still attempt to enter the site from Kohimarama Road when the gate is closed even if they see it before turning. It is not uncommon for locations which couriers visit to have access gates which can be opened remotely for them. A driver who was visiting the site for the first time may only have a second or two to view the access before turning in and may not understand that this type of system was not in place here. Reversing out during before and after

Technical Memorandum

school periods would be particularly hazardous to both pedestrians and through traffic on Kohimarama Road.

27. It is clear to me that a gate (or bollards) located at or near the Kohimarama Road Access is not without a road safety risk.

28. Without more information on the options and analysis undertaken by the applicant on the automatic bollard system I cannot definitively comment on whether it is the best way to respond to crash risk during the before and after school periods.

Recommendation: Before granting consent I recommend that the Environmental Protection Agency ask the applicant to provide more information on the options considered for the Kohimarama Road access control system and get their own independent engineering advice on the appropriateness of the automatic bollard system.

29. If the proposed system of automatic bollards is implemented then I am concerned about several aspects of the details of how it is proposed to be implemented which I believe can be addressed relatively easily without fundamental change to the system.

30. My first concern is that (if the proposed system of automatic bollards is implemented) drivers who are unfamiliar with the site (for instance occasional visitors or couriers) and who have entered from Kohimarama Road during school hours will not realize that there is detector loop buried in the internal road immediately before the bollards. These drivers may attempt to turn around or reverse out as soon as they see the bollards and they may not come close enough to activate the loop.

31. To prevent this from happening I suggest that a sign is installed next to the bollards advising drivers of the detector loop and the position of the loop is marked with a road marking on the pavement surface. However, I acknowledge that there are other solutions to this concern which Ryman or their advisors may prefer and I am open to alternatives.

Recommendation: Request that the applicant install some measures ensure drivers who are unfamiliar with the site are made aware that there is a detector loop to lower the automatic bollards. A suggested solution is to install a sign advising them as well as a marking on the pavement surface indicating the detector loop’s position.

32. My second concern is that drivers who have not visited the site before may not be aware of that there is an alternative access off John Rymer Place which can be used during before and after school periods and may choose to enter from Kohimarama Road in the restricted period regardless of the restriction.

Recommendation: Alter the proposed no entry signs at the Kohimarama Road access to advise drivers there is an alternative access off John Rymer Place to enter the site during before and after school peaks.

33. I also suggest the following conditions to further address concerns regarding vehicles entering the site from Kohimarama Road during before and after school periods:

Recommendations: • That a condition be imposed that the applicant be required to arrange for deliveries and visits by service vehicles (for instance rubbish removal) to be scheduled outside of before and after school periods where possible. • That a condition be imposed that the applicant ensure that residents, guests, and service providers regularly visiting the village are informed and educated about the access restrictions from Kohimarama Road and the reasons for them at the time they take up residence in the village / start providing services to the village. 4

Technical Memorandum

• That the system of automatic bollards include a means to automatically log the times and dates when the bollards have been lowered in response to a vehicle being detected on the inductance detector loop and that this information be reported to the Auckland Council Team Leader Monitoring at six month intervals along with information what measures the village management is taking to reduce the number of vehicles entering during before and after school periods.

Kohimarama Road Access – Intervisibility Between Pedestrians and Vehicles Leaving the Village

34. Section 5.9 of the TAR covers design of access points and in particular visibility splays at the access points.

35. The firth bullet point in the list at the bottom of page 22 of the TAR recommends (visually) permeable fencing on the right-hand side of the accesses only. In order to comply with the visibility splays shown in Figure 5-10 of the TAR this should be both sides.

Recommendation: 2 m of visually permeable fencing should be installed on both sides of both the accessways.

36. Beca Drawing 044-RCT-S01-A3-010 Revision A (Appendix D of the application) shows site fencing around the Kohimarama Road access. On this drawing only a short section of fencing on one side of the access is visually permeable. Although it is more than is necessary to provide the visibility splays shown in Figure 5-10 of the TAR, I suggest that visually permeable fencing is provided all the way between the Kohimarama Road access and the Selwyn College site as this will further increase the chance that a driver leaving the site will see pedestrians walking toward the access from the school. I am marking this issue as a suggestion only as it goes beyond the requirements of the applicable standard.

Suggestion: Extend the visually permeable fencing from the Kohimarama Road access to the edge of the Selwyn College site.

37. The sixth bullet point on Page 22 of the TAR states that planting will not be higher than 1.0 m within the visibility splay areas at the accessways. This is also covered in Section 4.3 of the Peer Review which states that Auckland Transport had requested a maximum planting height of 0.6 m. It is the FLOW Peer Reviewer’s opinion that 1 m is sufficient as this is just below driver eye height.

38. I disagree with this assessment. Lower planting allows drivers to see more of a pedestrian’s body and better assess body language and intent to cross the access. Also the topology of the site means the internal road has a relatively steep upward longitudinal gradient on the approach to the Kohimarama Road access and this will reduce the ability of drivers to see over vegetation. I recommend a maximum planting height of 0.6 m at the Kohimarama Road access.

Recommendation: Planting in the visibility splays at the Kohimarama Road access should be a maximum of 0.6 m high.

39. Provided that my recommendations above are addressed then I consider that the safety risk of a crash involving a pedestrian at the Kohimarama Road access to be a less than minor effect.

40. Figure 5-4 of the TAR shows that the applicant proposes to regrade the footpath either side of the Kohimarama Road access. There will be a section on the west side of the access which has a 12.5% grade and is approximately 8 m long.

41. Table 3 of the AT Engineering Design Code Footpaths and The Public Realm (part of the AT Transport Design Manual) gives acceptable grades for footpaths. Grades between 10 and 12.5% must have a maximum length of 3 m and are by departure from standard only. This is for the benefit of mobility

Technical Memorandum

impaired users like the elderly. It appears that the footpath works could be extended further south to provide an acceptable footpath grade.

Recommendation: Extend extent of works for to regrade the footpath at the Kohimarama Road access to provide a grade compliant with the requirements of the AT Engineering Design Code: Footpaths and Public Realm.

Kohimarama Road Access – Potential No Right Turn Into The Village Restriction

42. The AT memo from Celeste Cupido dated 21 May 2020 recommended that the right turn into the site at the Kohimarama Road access be prohibited and a raised median island installed. I do not consider this to be necessary.

43. The raised median island itself would potentially create some adverse effects. It would prevent drivers turning right into existing vehicle crossings for the residential properties opposite the Kohimarama Road access. The median island may also encourage pedestrians from the College site to use it as an informal crossing location rather than travel to the nearby signalized pedestrian crossing outside the Selwyn College site, which is a safer way to cross.

44. The 21 May 2020 memo stated that there is a concern that drivers during right into the Kohimarama Road access who are searching for a gap in the stream of northbound traffic will not notice a pedestrian crossing the access.

45. The peak periods for pedestrian activity around the Kohimarama Road access are during before and after school periods and it is at these times when the potential risk of a crash involving a pedestrian is greatest. The application proposes to restrict access do the site from Kohimarama Road during these periods using signs and automatic bollards.

46. The system of bollards proposed will prevent any vehicles leaving the site via the Kohimarama Road access during before or after school periods, but they do will not completely prevent access by vehicles entering from this access. My expectation is that most drivers who access the site regularly (residents, staff, and frequent visitors to the site) will use the John Rymer Place access during these periods, however non-frequent visitors will be much less likely to comply with the access restriction. There will still be some traffic turning right into the site during before and after school periods, although it will be much less than without the access restriction.

47. I consider the proposed no right turn restriction signs and automatic bollards to be an effective way of mitigating (but not eliminating) the risk of a crash involving a pedestrian at the Kohimarama Road access during before and after school periods. However, there may be more effective ways to implement the access restriction (which I have discussed above in Paragraphs XX to XX) which would further reduce the risk.

48. There is a flush median in this location where drivers waiting to turn into the site can wait safely for a gap in the stream of northbound traffic. Because vehicles can wait out of the traffic lane drivers turning right into the site will not feel social pressure to turn as soon as possible in order to clear the lane for through traffic. This will reduce this risk that they will attempt to turn through a gap in the stream of traffic which is too short or not take the necessary time to check for pedestrians crossing the access before turning.

49. The signals at the Kohimarama Road/John Rymer Place intersection to the south will provide regular long gaps in the stream of northbound traffic which will help drivers turning right into the Kohimarama Road access turn safely. Where suitable gaps are relatively easy to find turning drivers are better able to divert some of their attention from searching for a gap to checking for pedestrians.

Technical Memorandum

50. Unlike many arterial roads Kohimarama Road is one lane in each direction only in this location and this means that a driver turning into the Kohimarama Road Access must only check one lane for a gap in the traffic stream.

51. The design of the access will help moderate the speed of turning vehicles. Higher turning vehicle speeds increase both the risk of a crash happening and also the severity of any crash which does happen.

52. The 6.0 m width of the Kohimarama Road Access at the boundary is compliant with the Auckland Unitary Plan widths for residential vehicle crossings and will be constructed in accordance with an AT standard engineering detail drawing for vehicle crossings. Vehicle accesses with excessive widths both encourage higher vehicle speeds when turning and expose crossing pedestrians to traffic for longer.

53. The third bullet point in Page 22 of the TAR (Section 5.9) states that speed bumps will be provided at the Kohimarama Road access to help moderate the speed of turning vehicles and reduce the risk of a crash involving a pedestrian crossing the access. I agree that this is a prudent safety measure, however they are not described or mentioned elsewhere in the TAR or shown on the drawings provided. Page 9 of the Peer Review makes reference to a speed hump being installed across this access.

Recommendation: Provide a speed bump on the KOH access (within the applicant’s site) to control speed. Request a condition that the details of the speed bump be subject to Council approval.

54. There are existing no parking at all times road markings on both sides of the Kohimarama Road access. This ensures that inter-visibility between pedestrians on the footpath approaching the access and the drivers of vehicles waiting to right turn into the access are not blocked by parked vehicles.

55. A no right turn restriction on the Kohimarama Road access would increase the volume of traffic turning right into John Rymer Place at the signalized intersection. As that turn movement is by filter right turn only it would be desirable to limit the volume of traffic making this movement by allowing drivers to turn right at the Kohimarama Road access. Vehicles waiting to make a filter right turn must wait in the shared through and right lane and this blocks through traffic in than lane until the turning driver can find a gap to filter turn though. The filter right turn is described in more detail in the section below on the intersection of Kohimarama Road, John Rymer Place, and Allum Street.

56. There is a possibility that a crash may happen involving a vehicle turning right into the Kohimarama Road access and a northbound vehicle on Kohimarama Road. However, I do not consider this to be high risk. As stated above there is a flush median for drivers to wait on out of the stream of traffic, only a single lane to cross, and regular gaps in the stream of oncoming traffic created by the signalized intersection at John Rymer Place.

57. The crash history for the area surrounding the site in the TAR has no crashes involving vehicles turning in or out of property adjacent to Kohimarama Road.

58. Visibility from the Kohimarama Road access looking south is covered in Section 5.8 of the TAR and found to be adequate (I concur with the TAR on this point).

59. Most vehicles on Kohimarama Road are travelling at or below the speed limit of 50 km/h. AT’s Vision Zero for Tāmaki-Makaurau Auckland strategy document gives speeds which are considered survivable for different crash types. If a crash involving a vehicle turning into the Kohimarama Road access and a northbound vehicle does happen it is unlikely to be a death or serious injury crash. It should be kept in mind that in many cases when a crash does happen drivers are able to start braking and reduce their speed before the crash so the impact speed is less in these cases. 7

Technical Memorandum

John Rymer Place Access

60. The potential for a serious crash is much lower at this access. Traffic volumes and speeds in John Rymer Place are lower and it does not have the same number of pedestrians crossing the access as the Kohimarama Road access near Selwyn College.

61. Section 5.8.2 of the TAR recommends that a 10 m long no stopping at all times (NSAAT) marking be installed on the south side of the John Rymer Place access to ensure parked vehicles do not restrict visibility. I concur with this recommendation. The access is located close to the outside of a horizontal curve and this means that less NSAAT marking is needed to provide adequate visibility than would be the case with a straight section of road.

62. Section 5.2 of the TAR states that there is 4.8 m between the John Rymer Place access and the vehicle crossing of 5 John Rymer Place. The AUP minimum clearance is 2 m (refer E27.6.4.2.1). Based on the scale drawing of the site in Figure 2-1 of the TAR the clearance appears to be far less than 4.8 m.

Recommendation: The clearance between the John Rymer Place access and adjacent vehicle crossings must be 2 m at a minimum as per the AUP rule.

63. The fifth bullet point in the list at the bottom of page 22 of the TAR recommends (visually) permeable fencing on the right-hand side of the accesses only. In order to comply with the visibility splays shown in Figure 5-10 of the TAR this should be both sides.

Recommendation: 2 m of visually permeable fencing should be installed on both sides of both the accessways.

64. Subject to the two recommendations above I consider that the John Rymer Place access proposed in the application to not present a more than minor road safety effect.

Intersection of Kohimarama Road, John Rymer Place, and Allum Street

65. I note that Section 4 of the TAR states that the proposed village will not meet the 500 unit threshold which would require a resource consent for trip generation. Regardless of this, the applicant has provided an assessment of trip generation regardless in Section 7.1 of the TAR. I agree with the assessment presented. The comparison with the other villages operated by the applicant is particularly helpful in in understanding trip generation at the site.

66. I note the trip generation in Section 7.2 of the TAR which considers an alternative development scenario based on the underlying Mixed Housing Urban zone where the site is developed as residential dwellings. This assessment shows much higher trip generation would result from the alternative scenario. I further note that unlike retirement village residents, who typically limit their travel during peak hours, the alternative scenario would have much higher trip generation in the AM and PM peaks. Spill over demand for on-street parking in surrounding streets would also be more likely with the alternative scenario.

67. The full SIDRA traffic modelling summary tables for the AM and PM peaks are missing from Attachment C of the TAR. Only the inter-peak data is supplied. This limits my ability to verify the information provided. Other useful information which has not been provided is the duration of each phase. Due to the fast-track consent process the applicant is using I am unable to request additional data and my comments here are based on the incomplete data supplied.

68. Subject to the limitations of the data supplied, in my opinion there is no reason to consider that the traffic modelling for the intersection comparing existing (base) and post-development scenarios is 8

Technical Memorandum

inaccurate. The reduction in degree of saturation during the inter-peak hour from 0.789 in the base to 0.755 post-development shown in Table 7-5 of the TAR initially appears counter-intuitive but by examining the full summaries in Attachment C of the TAR it is clear that this is due to an increase in cycle time between the existing(base) and post-development models from 100 to 110 seconds.

69. Capacity issues at intersections can have safety implications. Drivers are more likely to run a red light if they are frustrated by delays and cycle times are long. Queues extending back from an intersection into an adjacent intersection can cause safety problems at that other intersection.

70. However, in this application the modelling shows that the effect of the development on intersection capacity is minimal. The level of service does not change, and average delay times are only slightly increased (between 0.4 and 1.3 s depending on the time of day).

71. I note that Table 7.4 of the TAR describes queue lengths as being 85th percentile. SIDRA normally provides 95th percentile queue lengths (as shown in the full summary tables in Attachment C). This apparent mistake does not affect the overall conclusions of the traffic modelling and is of no consequence.

72. The main potential safety concern at this intersection resulting from the proposed development is the increased number of vehicles turning right into John Rymer Place.

73. The current signal phasing and equipment only permit this movement to be made by a filter right turn. This is where a driver is permitted to turn right into a side road and the same time as through movements from the opposite direction are operating. In this type of phasing the turning driver is required to give way.

74. Filter right turn phasing can provide more capacity at a signalized intersection, but it is also likely to increase the crash rate and in particular the risk of right-turn-against type crashes (CAS crash type code LB).

75. In early 2020 the AT Road Safety Engineering Team undertook a study of 29 signalized intersections where existing filter right turn phasing has been removed. This study found that there was a reduction in the annual number of recorded death and serious injury LB-type crashes from 0.67 per intersection per year to 0 per year.

76. For safety reasons the AT Road Safety Engineering Team does not support right turn filter turn phasing at new signalized intersections and has developed a protocol to identify and remove right turn filter phasing at existing signalized intersections considered to be high risk.

77. The CAS analysis for the intersection in Section 3.4.1 of the TAR shows that there have been three right turn against LB-type crashes in the 2015-2019 period studied. These were one non-injury and two minor injury crashes.

78. I undertook my own CAS check when preparing this memorandum. I found one additional LB-type crash which was not included in the TAR. This non-injury crash (Crash ID 201977024) happened on 8 August 2019. The reason for the crash being omitted from the TAR is not clear, however there can be a delay of several months between a crash happening and the crash record being uploaded into CAS. The most likely explanation is that the crash had not been uploaded when the TAR crash history was prepared.

79. I also checked CAS records for 2020. There was one non-injury LB-type crash (Crash ID 20201568770) in July of that year.

Technical Memorandum

80. Of the five recorded LB type crashes, only one non-injury crash involved a driver turning right into John Rymer Place. The others all involved a driver turning right into Allum Street.

81. It is clear that the existing right filter turn phasing at this intersection is contributing to increased crash risk. Adding extra vehicles making right turn movements into John Rymer Place will increase this risk in proportion to the number of extra vehicles turning.

82. Section 7.5 of the TAR examines potential changes to the intersection to reduce this risk. Two options are considered.

83. Option 2 would eliminate right turn filter turns, convert the combined right and through lanes to right turn only lanes, and eliminate the existing Barnes Dance pedestrian phasing (to counterbalance the loss of capacity from the reduction in through lanes). This option is not modelled and the TAR dismissed it due to the effect on intersection operating, and removal of the Barnes Dance which is close to schools. I agree that removal of the Barnes Dance is not acceptable, as requiring pedestrians wanting to cross diagonally to wait twice while crossing will increase the risk that pedestrians will cross outside their phase, which would itself be a safety issue and potentially more significant than the issue which Option 2 seeks to address as it would involve vulnerable road users.

84. Option 1 would essentially retain the existing phasing and layout but provide a lag right turn phase for drivers turning right into John Rymer Place. This phasing is shown in Figure 7-7 of the TAR.

85. It is important to note that this arrangement would not eliminate the right turn filter turns (they are still shown as the dark green arrows in Phase C in Figure 7-7 of the TAR). It would not reduce filter right turn crashes involving turns into Allum Street and would be only partially effective in reducing filter right turn crashes involving turns into John Rymer Place.

86. Table 7-7 of the TAR compares intersection performance between the base (pre-development / existing phasing), Option 1 phasing changes without retirement village traffic, and combined Option 1 and retired retirement village traffic effects.

87. It shows that the effect of changing the phasing to Option 1 is much more significant than the impact of adding retirement village traffic to the intersection. The combined effect varies between periods, but in the worst effected period the level of service drops from C to E, the average delay increases from 26.8s to 58.1s , and the degree of saturation (DoS) increases from 0.716 to 1.015. DoS is a measure of the intersection capacity with a value of 1 indicating there is no remaining spare capacity and any increase in traffic volumes at the intersection will add directly to queue lengths. The surrounding area is zoned for intensification and this is likely to bring more traffic to the intersection.

88. The TAR makes no recommendation regarding Option 1 but notes that it is a trade-off between capacity and improving safety.

89. The 95th percentile queue lengths for Option 1 inter-peak shown in Table 7-7 of the TAR extend 300 metres back along Kohimarama Road. This is through the Whytehead Crescent and Hampton Drive intersections. I consider that the potential impacts at these intersections alone would more than offset the modest safety improvements which Option 1 would provide at John Rymer Place and I do not consider it viable.

90. Queue lengths on other approaches are not stated but these would typically be similar on the other side of intersection (Kohimarama Road southbound) given similar traffic volumes. This would put the back of queue back near the college access which may exacerbate pre-existing issues outside the school described in Section 5.2 of the TAR.

Technical Memorandum

91. Widening Kohimarama Road to provide space for right turn bays while retaining two through lanes in each direction near the intersection would likely allow filter right turn phasing to be eliminated while retaining sufficient capacity, but this would require additional land which is in the ownership of third parties.

92. AT’s Vision Zero for Tāmaki-Makaurau Auckland strategy document gives speeds which are considered survivable for different crash types. For a side impact crash (for instance a type LB right turn against crash) the survivable speed is 50 km/h which is the posted speed limit on Kohimarama Road. There are no recorded LB-type crashes at the intersection with a severity greater than minor injury.

93. The increase in right turn movements into John Rymer Place would be very modest. The increase in the interpeak is greatest where it goes from 11 vehicles per hour to 18 vehicles per hour, an increase of only 7 vehicles per hour. For contrast there are 102 vehicles per hour turning right into Allum Street and 1,926 vehicle movements per hour total at the intersection. 94. The Option 1 phasing would not eliminate the right turn filter turn issue. This phasing still allows filter right turns into John Rymer Place. The main difference to the existing is that there would also be a phase where drivers making this turn have a green right turn arrow signal.

95. Given the very small increase in vehicles turning right into John Rymer Place, the posted speed limit not exceeding the survival speed for a side impact crash, and the lack of any historic crash records where crash severity was more than minor injury I consider that the increase in safety risk at the John Rymer Place/Kohimarama Road intersection which could be attributed to the proposed development to be a less than minor effect in terms of the Resource Management Act.

Construction Traffic

96. Section 9 TAR discuss construction traffic issues. TAR Attachment D contains a draft construction traffic management plan (CTMP) for the site. Section 25 of the proposed conditions of consent in Appendix J of the AEE also relates to construction traffic. Section 6 of the peer review also comments on construction traffic issues.

97. The TAR states during construction a vehicle crossing wider than the permanent crossing at the John Rymer Place access will be provided to accommodate truck movements. Tracking is provided in Figure 5-2 of the TAR showing that the temporary NSAAT markings will be needed near the access to allow for the turning of heavy vehicles.

98. Truck movements at the John Rymer Place/Kohimarama Road intersection will not use the north (Kohimarama Road) leg of the intersection. Trucks will arrive and depart via the east and south legs, and it is apparent that this will be predominately via the south leg (Kohimarama Road).

99. At the Kohimarama Road access to the site the same movements will be permitted for construction traffic as for the permanent operation of the site.

100. At both accesses the TAR states that a traffic controller(TC) or site traffic management supervisor(STMS) will manage the access. The TAR is does not explicitly state that the TC or STMS will be present at the access during truck movements and I recommend this is done.

Recommendation: Include a requirement that a TC or STMS is present at any site access when vehicles are entering or leaving the site.

101. The TAR states that truck movements into the site will not happen during before and after school periods expect for concrete pours and there is a proffered condition in Appendix J to this effect. If

Technical Memorandum

concrete trucks need to access the site during these periods a second TC will be provided at each access to assist with traffic management.

102. All construction related parking will be accommodated on-site and there is a proffered condition to this effect.

103. I consider that construction traffic can be managed safely during the works on the basis described in the TAR and draft CTMP. It is noted that one of the proffered conditions requires a temporary traffic management plan to be prepared, and this will allow the road controlling authority (Auckland Transport), the ability to control the specific details of the traffic management for the site within the public road based on the conditions of the consent.

104. Estimated truck traffic volumes associated with construction are provided in Table 4-1 of the TAR. The peak is up to 34 trucks per day during construction and fitting out stage (Stage 3). Kohimarama Road is a designated freight route in the Auckland Strategic Freight Route Maps and the number of additional vehicles is very low compared to the existing volume of traffic on Kohimarama Road which exceeds 25,000 per day.

105. It is noted that the Peer Review comments on the potential for pavement damage where trucks use local roads for construction access. Given operating speeds in John Rymer Place this is not necessarily a road safety issue, provided the damage to the surface is relatively limited before remedial works are carried out. There is a proffered condition in Appendix J relating to asset damage which would address this concern.

Other Comments

106. I consider the on-site parking arrangements proposed for the village to be adequate. It is noted that many retirement village residents cannot or do not drive. Although on-street parking on the public road is available to all members of the public, there is no reason to believe that there will be any noticeable spill-over parking from the village in surrounding streets.

107. Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.7 and 5.11 confirm that both vehicle crossings conform to Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) rules on number of accesses for a site, width of accesses, proximity to intersections, and ramp grades respectively. I accept these statements are correct and have no concerns regarding these matters.

108. Aside from the issue with right turn against crashes at the John Rymer Place/Kohimarama Road intersection the crash history summary in Section 3.4 of the TAR does not indicate any pre-existing crash patterns at or near the site which could potentially be exacerbated by traffic from the proposed retirement village.

109. It is notable that there are no recorded crashes involving pedestrians near the site during the study period, despite the pre-existing issues around the Selwyn College described in the TAR. There are also no historic crashes near the site involving access to or from private property.

110. There are safe walking routes to nearby facilities. The local shops nearest to the village are on the south-east corner of the John Rymer Place/Kohimarama Road intersection. The signalized crossings this intersection allow pedestrians to cross between the village and these shops safely. The same signals can also be used to access the nearest bus stop on the opposite side of Kohimarama Road which is outside St Thomas School.

Summary

Technical Memorandum

111. There are some relatively minor changes to the application which I have recommended above which I consider necessary to best address potential road safety issues in the public road relating to the development.

112. Provided that these issues are addressed I am of the opinion that the proposed retirement village development does not have any adverse road safety effects which are more than minor from a Resource Management Act perspective.

Attachment 3: Auckland Transport Operation Centre (ATOC)

Scheme Assessment Review Project Name: Ryman Healthcare Retirement Village, Kohimarama Documents/ Drawings Transportation Assessment Report – dated 12th February 2021 Received: Date Received: 16/02/2021 Date Reviewed: 18/02/2021 Reviewed By: Benjamin Gonzalez Peer Reviewed By: Romany Sharobim

Design Comment

1. As per Paul Schiska safety assessment, controlling the right-turn would have severe negative impact on the intersection’s LOS, specially during interpeak. However, we disagree with paragraph 67 which states that Option 1 phasing would not eliminate right turn filter issue. With lead-lag phasing we can disable filtering, which means the safety improvements that Option 1 provides are bigger than those mentioned in this assessment.

2. We agree that the crash history does not indicate an urgent need for signalisation of the right-turn movement into John Rymer Pl.

3. We also agree that the effects to the performance of the intersection in Option 1 shown on the modelling are too severe and would cause major operational challenges, particularly on Kohimarama Rd S approach. Thus, we agree that Option 1 phasing is not recommended if no changes to the physical layout are made, and that retaining the existing phasing is adequate.

4. We do want to raise a recommendation that, where possible (outside the school restriction hours stated in the report), residents of the retirement village travelling southbound along Kohi Rd should be encouraged to use the Kohi Rd access via the right-turn pocket in the median rather than the John Rymer Pl access. The reason being that they will get more gaps in traffic to filter at this point due to the traffic signals ahead, and they will be able to wait for the gap without blocking through traffic. This will help minimise impact on Kohi Rd/John Rymer intersection.

5. Suitability of the trip generation/distribution and assumption not checked as part of this review. 6. To improve safety into and out of Kohimarama Rd access point, located just before a bend, ensure trees are trimmed to provide 90m clear sight distance to the east.

7. Right turn entries by trucks onto Kohimarama Rd access point during construction may be unsafe due to heavy opposing traffic, specially at stage 3 of construction programme. Consider banning this movement and only allowing trucks to enter this access point by left- turn from Kohimarama Rd.

MEMO Date: 24 March 2021

To: Russell Butchers Premium Project Manager Sandy Hsiao Planner

From: Kuanjin (Jin) Lee Regulatory Engineering - Central Auckland Council Operations Division ______

Subject: Regulatory Engineering Review Resource Consent Application – PRR00036539 223 Kohimarama Road and 9 John Rymer Place ______

INTRODUCTION I understand it is proposed to construct 7 new buildings at the subject site. The seven new buildings shall comprise: - 98 care rooms - 75 assisted living suites - 123 apartment units - Common spaces

Proposed Site

The following comments relate to your brief to me, specifically looking at: • Infrastructure (Stormwater, Wastewater and Water Supply) • Flooding • Earthworks ______PAGE 1 OF 6

As part of the review, I have assessed the information provided in the following: • Auckland Council GeoMaps • Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 Resource Consent Application BUN60353138 223 Kohimarama Road and 9 John Rymer Place by Regulatory Engineering (dated: 9 November 2020) • Letter RE: Council Resource Consent number BUN60353138 223 Kohimarama RD Kohimarama 1071 Watercare application number – RC 17697 (Amendment) from Watercare Services Limited to Auckland Council (dated: 2 September 2020) • Proposed Comprehensive Care Retirement Village, Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects by Ryman Healthcare (dated: February 2021) • Geotechnical Assessment of Environmental Effects by Tonkin & Taylor Limited (reference: 30314.v4, dated: February 2021) • Infrastructure Report 223 Kohimarama Road Auckland by Tektus (reference: T19083.210211.R01.KOHI.INFRA.DOCX, revision: 1, dated: 11 February 2021) • Email RE: Important: Ryman Kohimarama Fast Track Application (PRR00036539) • Asset Owner and Specialist Input Request Details – Comments to the Expert Panel on consideration of a COVID-19 Fast-track consent application from Watercare Services Limited (dated: 19 February 2021) • Technical Memo – Specialist Input from Healthy Waters (reference: Covid19 Fast Track application, EPA ref: 2020-013, dated: 22 February 2021)

Based on my assessment, I have provided a summary of findings and the following recommended conditions from an engineering perspective:

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Site Visit As part of the assessment, a site visit was conducted on 26 February 2020. I have used the observations from my site visit to supplement my assessment of the proposed development. Site photos are included in the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 Resource Consent Application BUN60353138 223 Kohimarama Road and 9 John Rymer Place by Regulatory Engineering (dated: 9 November 2020).

2. Stormwater There are no proposed changes in the proposed impervious area (53.1%) from the BUN60353138 nor changes to the stormwater alignment. I understand that the Stormwater Management Plan is still undergoing review with Healthy Waters at the time of writing this memo.

Assessment Conclusions The recommended advice notes provided within the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 (dated: 9 November 2020) are considered appropriate to apply.

3. Wastewater Due to the size of the proposed development this application was sent to Watercare Services for an assessment on the downstream effects/capacity for this development. Based on my review of Letter RE: Council Resource Consent number BUN60353138, 223 Kohimarama RD Kohimarama 1071, Watercare Application Number – RC 17697 from Watercare Services Limited to Auckland Council (dated: 2 September 2020), they have concluded that the proposed wastewater network extension and capacity assessment for wastewater at the above site is generally acceptable. Further details are required to be addressed as part of detailed design at Engineering Plan Approval stage with considerations to effects on Auckland Transport.

These include two options moving forward which would be considered acceptable to Watercare: 1. Extend wastewater line from 223 Kohimarama Road to across Kohimarama Road/Allum Street (to opposite 134 Allum Street)

______PAGE 2 OF 6 2. Upgrade the John Rymer pump station and local risking main network and connecting to the 150 mm diameter wastewater line at 7 John Rymer Place to the pump station.

Evidence provided within the Infrastructure Report 223 Kohimarama Road Auckland by Tektus (reference: T19083.210211.R01.KOHI.INFRA.DOCX, revision: 1, dated: 11 February 2021) aligns with Option 1.

The evidence provided within Asset Owner and Specialist Input Request Details – Comments to the Expert Panel on consideration of a COVID-19 Fast-track consent application from Watercare Services Limited (dated: 19 February 2021) confirms that the proposal is acceptable from a resource consent perspective and serviceability for the development is feasible for wastewater.

Assessment Conclusions Based on the Watercare review, I expect the existing public wastewater line to be able to accommodate the flows from site and there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development. A Building Consent and an Engineering Plan Approval will be required as part of works. The recommended advice notes provided within the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 (dated: 9 November 2020) are considered appropriate to apply.

Recommended Advice Notes • Please refer to: Asset Owner and Specialist Input Request Details – Comments to the Expert Panel on consideration of a COVID-19 Fast-track consent application from Watercare Services Limited (dated: 19 February 2021) • Watercare’s approval is valid for 2 years from 19 February 2021. Network upgrades may be required after 19 February 2023.

4. Water Water Supply Based on the Infrastructure Report 223 Kohimarama Road Auckland by Tektus (reference: T19083.210211.R01.KOHI.INFRA.DOCX, revision: 1, dated: 11 February 2021), it is proposed to ______PAGE 3 OF 6 have two connections for water supply, one to the existing 225 mm diameter water line on Kohimarama Road and another to the 100 mm diameter water line on the southern side of John Rymer Place.

Based on my review of Asset Owner and Specialist Input Request Details – Comments to the Expert Panel on consideration of a COVID-19 Fast-track consent application from Watercare Services Limited (dated: 19 February 2021), have concluded that water supply at the above site is generally acceptable from the 225 mm line on Kohimarama Road or the 100 mm diameter water line on John Rymer Place.

Firefighting There are no proposed changes to address firefighting serviceability from the BUN60353138.

Assessment Conclusions Recommended Advice Notes • Please refer to: Asset Owner and Specialist Input Request Details – Comments to the Expert Panel on consideration of a COVID-19 Fast-track consent application from Watercare Services Limited (dated: 19 February 2021) • Watercare’s approval is valid for 2 years from 19 February 2021. Network upgrades may be required after 19 February 2023.

5. Flooding Auckland GeoMaps shows potential floodwaters affecting the site. There are a number of overland flow paths mapped onsite. To address this, the applicant has provided an Infrastructure Report 223 Kohimarama Road Auckland by Tektus (reference: T19083.210211.R01.KOHI.INFRA.DOCX, revision: 1, dated: 11 February 2021)

For the flooding component of this assessment, I have utilised the expertise of Healthy Waters and their provided Memo (dated: 22 February 2021). Healthy Waters have advised that they have satisfied with the technical information provided, the design changes and the risk assessment undertaken. The recommendation for site specific management plan has been retained and therefore the previously recommended condition remains relevant.

Assessment Conclusions Based on the provided information and the peer review from Healthy Waters, the effects of the proposed development are considered to be effectively managed and controlled in relation to the proposed activity onsite and downstream buildings and infrastructure subject to retaining conditions 3, 6, 7, advice notes and the covenant recommended in the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 (dated: 9 November 2020).

The following conditions are recommended to be revised from the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 (dated: 9 November 2020) to align with the updated reporting. Previously recommended condition 2 is no longer required.

Recommended Conditions 4. The Consent Holder shall provide to the satisfaction of Auckland Council Team Leader Compliance and Monitoring – Central a statement from an engineer certifying that the overland flow path depicted within Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 Resource Consent Application BUN60353138 223 Kohimarama Road and 9 John Rymer Place by Regulatory Engineering (dated: 9 November 2020) has its alignment maintained across the site. This shall be provided within 20 working days from the completion of the works. 5. The overland flow path shall maintain the capacity and entry and exit points as identified in Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 Resource Consent Application BUN60353138 223 Kohimarama Road and 9 John Rymer Place by Regulatory Engineering (dated: 9 November 2020) and be kept free of all obstructions e.g. buildings and solid fences.

______PAGE 4 OF 6 6. Earthworks General Earthworks There is an increase in earthworks from BUN60353138 and there have been some changes to the maximum retained heights and cut depths.

Area Volume (m3) Max Cut Max Fill (m2) Cut Fill (m) (m) BUN60353138 25377 52874 5750 6.18 6.0 PRR00036539 25376 52602 5879 10 5.0

I concur with the Infrastructure Report 223 Kohimarama Road Auckland by Tektus (reference: T19083.210211.R01.KOHI.INFRA.DOCX, revision: 1, dated: 11 February 2021) for the provisions of a Construction Management Plan.

Assessment Conclusions I consider the proposed earthworks to be suitable for the proposed development. Previously recommended conditions (8 - 17) and advice notes provided in the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 (dated: 9 November 2020) are considered appropriate to apply.

Geotechnical I have concerns with the information provided particularly with the increase in retained height along the eastern boundary an adjacent to 3A John Rymer Place, 249A and 247A Kohimarama Road which has been assessed by within Geotechnical Assessment of Environmental Effects by Tonkin & Taylor Limited (reference: 30314.v4, dated: February 2021) to be no more than 2.5 m high however the updated Earthworks Plan by Tektus show this to be up to 3.66 m. Therefore, there is a disconnect between the assessed and proposed retaining wall which can adversely affect the neighbouring properties.

Further details are required to aid in assurances for the protection of the neighbouring properties in terms of mechanical settlement and management. I understand that no further information is to be provided for therefore I would recommend that further assessment be undertaken as a condition of consent to assess the additional excavation works at the eastern site boundary. ______PAGE 5 OF 6

Assessment Conclusions It is recommended to retain conditions 18 and 20 in the Regulatory Engineering Review Rev 3 (dated: 9 November 2020). I would recommend that further information be provided to align the assessment with the revised earthworks and retaining works. This assessment is necessary to determine effects offsite.

Refer to the recommended updated conditions below aligning with the engineering reporting and further information required.

Recommended Conditions 19. The Consent Holder shall engage an engineer (who is familiar with the approved report as required by Condition 20) to monitor all excavations, retaining and foundation construction. The supervising engineer’s contact details shall be provided in writing to the Council at least two weeks prior to earthworks commencing on site. 20. The Consent Holder shall provide a geotechnical assessment addressing the effects of the proposed earthworks and retaining structures by a suitably qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist with reference to the Geotechnical Assessment of Environmental Effects by Tonkin & Taylor Limited (reference: 30314.v4, dated: February 2021).

The geotechnical recommendations shall include an engineer’s work method for the contractor to undertake the earthworks with and include the recommendations provided within. The work method statement shall include filling specifications, filling methods, compaction standards and testing, excavation time frames, temporary propping/weatherproofing and/or sequencing of works. This shall be required to ensure fills are suitably compacted and stability is maintained throughout the civil works stage of the development. The work method shall be provided in writing to the satisfaction of the Council at least two weeks prior to earthworks commencing on site. No works onsite are permitted prior to written approval that the engineer’s work method has been reviewed and accepted by the Council.

7. Signature Signed:

Kuanjin (Jin) Lee Development Engineer

______PAGE 6 OF 6

Technical Memo – Specialist Input To: Sandy Hsaio, Planner - Auckland Council Jin lee - Development Engineer Richard Smedley – HWD Principal Network Planning From: Maree Gleeson - HWD Specialist and Mark Iszard, Growth and Development Manager Date: 22/02/2021 Applicant: Ryman Healthcare Application numbers: Covid19 Fast Track application, EPA ref: 2020-013

Reference Documents

Application “Ryman Healthcare Limited: Proposed Comprehensive Care Retirement Village – 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama, Auckland:– Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects’ report prepared by Ryman Healthcare, dated 12 February 2021 (hence with referred to as AEE) V2 -F- Civil design Report (Including Stormwater Management Plan) January 2021 (Tektus) V3 – A – Resource consent Site Plans and Drawings January 2021 (Beca) Appendix L -F – Civil Drawings February 2021 (Tektus) V4 -B Assessment Civil Works Drawings February 2020 (Beca)

Proposal The proposal is to establish a comprehensive care retirement village in the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone. The retirement village will include up to seven buildings and will include care rooms and apartments. The construction of the proposal will also require earthworks, watercourse diversion and stormwater management.

Further Appendix H – Civil Response 17-4-20 (Beca) Information: Kohimarama Retirement Village Beca Civil Drawings -issued for assessment Beca 17-4-20

Appendix A Civil Response 5-8-20 Beca

Appendix A Beca Civil Response following peer review 30 June 2020

Final s92 memo Outstanding matters 21-7-20 Beca

Final s92 memo Outstanding matters 5-8-20 Beca

Overland Flow Path Levels 12-8-20 Beca

Stream Hydraulic Grade Line Calculation 12-8-20 Beca

Updated Civil Plans and Civil design report (Including stormwater management Plan) by Tektus dated February 2021

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 1

Specialist Review the flood risk assessment as required by E36.9 (2). This should include but is not Input limited to the increase in flows as a result of the proposal for the 100yr and 10yr ARI +CC request flood event and the effect on upstream and downstream properties. (off site effects) Review the flood risk assessment as required by E36.9 (2). This should include but is not limited to the increase in flows as a result of the proposal for the 100yr and 10yr ARI +CC flood event and the proposal to abandon existing stormwater networks within the site, re-align the existing stream and the effect on the development (on site effects)

Review the private and public networks proposed and the ownership, operation and maintenance of the stormwater network proposal including the re-aligned stream.

Review the Stormwater Management Plan. This review is not specifically required for resource consent, however, will be required for HWD to allow a stormwater connection from the development to the public stormwater network under the Region wide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent.

HWD Response General The initial HWD application review was carried out by Maree Gleeson and Richard Smedley. The further review for the Covid19 fast Track application was peer reviewed by Mark Iszard. Due to the complex nature of the application HWD recommended a peer review on the catchment hydrological modelling and this review was subsequently carried out by Tektus Consultants Ltd. Refer SW & Flood Modelling Peer Review Tektus 14 May 2020. Following the peer review additional items were raised in the MS Teams meeting held 15 June 2020 including: 1. Increasing the contributing catchment areas to include Kohi Road properties 2. Confirmation of the capacity of the proposed re-aligned stream with supporting X sections, 100yr ARI water levels and proposed freeboard. 3. Updated Flood Hazard Risk assessment under E36.92 for both on site and off site 4. Assessment of the flood risk with the downstream 600 mm dia 100% blocked 5. Confirming the driving head available at SWMH 2.11 and inlet capacity of the scruffy dome MH’s. A further Beca civil response was received 30 June 2020 and further information was requested in early July. On 22-7-20 Appendices: A Beca Civil response and B updated SMP were received. Outstanding issues as at 27-7-20 included: 1. Retirement village habitable floor Freeboard above the re-aligned stream for 100yr ARI 2. The E36.9.2 hazard assessment for 100yr ARI not addressing the risk posed by the proposed freeboards of 170mm and 240mm above retirement village floors at X Sections 2 & 3, of the realigned stream. 3. Understanding the water levels of the OLFP downstream of SWMH2.11 and the scruffy dome MH’s and the tailwater effect on the stream hydraulic grade line.

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 2

A further submission from Beca was received on 5 August and 11 August 2020 and a MS teams meeting was held with Beca and Tektus on 12-8-20 and a further MS teams meeting 17-8-20 with Beca and HWD.

Following these meetings more detailed information was provided, however no design changes were made to the re-aligned stream design. The design changes were requested by HWD to drop the peak 100yr ARI water levels in the re-aligned stream and increase freeboard.

Beca has confirmed they will make these design changes to the re-aligned stream design prior to the resource consent hearing, following the limited notification process. The proposed changes will deepen the stream and widen the stream extent at cross sections 2 and 3 to reduce the peak 100yr ARI water levels and increase the freeboard.

A peer review of the revised civil and infrastructure reports prepared by the applicant identifies that the above noted design changes have been made and that a minimum of 500mm freeboard is proposed for all habitable floor levels

Flooding (off- There is an existing SW network in the subject site that services Kohimarama Road, site 17 – 19 parts of Selwyn College to the north and adjacent properties in Kohimarama Road to John Rymer the east. The site has two small sections of open stream within two depressions Place ) interlinked with a 450 and a 225 mm dia stormwater pipe network.

E36.9.2 There is an inlet structure/manhole NP4851 and 600 mm dia pipe at the southern considerations boundary of the subject site and 17 John Rymer Place. This inlet structure is the primary pipe network inlet for the entire upstream catchment area of approximately 6.4 ha. Blockage of downstream The downstream effects of the development relate to the increase impervious area and network and the additional 10yr and 100yr flows generated and the effects of these flows and flood upstream risk to habitable floors in 17 and 19 John Rymer Place. network There is additional concentrated overland flow path to 35a John Rymer Place a sheet overland flows along the south eat boundary to 27a and 47 John Rymer Place.

The SMP mentions there is considerable risk that already exists due to fencing in 17 John Rymer Place blocking the overland flow path. The overland flow path entry point is also not ideal as it directs overland flow directly to the basement area of 17 John Rymer Place. The proposed Overland flow path will be moved slightly west.

The applicant’s solution to minimise off site effects is to attenuate both the 10yr and 100yr ARI flows via a 1350m3 detention tank to be located under Building B01. The proposed primary stormwater networks that will service the development are spilt into two. The western network is private and services the all the private driveway and most of the proposed buildings to the east and west of the driveway. The Rymans eastern courtyard, runoff from Selwyn College, Kohimarama Road, 220 to 234 Kohimarama Road and adjacent properties 245 to 255 Kohimarama Road are generally serviced by the re-aligned stream to the east of the site.

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 3

The “zoomed in “network diagram arrangement (see below) indicates how the network will function at the southern boundary of the site around existing MH NP4851. All flows up to the 10yr ARI design storm will pass through the primary pipe network. If the inlet to the 375mmdia at the downstream end of the realigned stream blocks then the water levels will rise will rise and overflow into the scruffy domes inlets 1 and 2. Flows in excess of 10 yr ARI will surcharge the network at SW MH 2.11 and flows will divert to the storage tank. For 100yr ARI the entire network will be full and the network will surcharge and the resulting overland flow to 17 John Rymer Place is estimated at 0.28m3/s for the post-development scenario and for pre-development the flow is 0.30m3/s. Therefore, a reduction in peak overland flow is predicted post the development.

The network arrangement upstream of existing SW MH 4851 is shown below:

The proposed network flow diagram is shown below:

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 4

Catchment Hydrological modelling was carried out for both 10 & 100 year ARI, with and without climate change, for both existing and MPD land use conditions. The post development condition assumes allows for attenuation via the 1350m3 attenuation tank. The pre and post 10yr & 100yr ARI peak ARI flows (existing development scenario) are shown in the tables below:

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 5

The results of the modelling analysis concluded the on-site peak flow attenuation tank with ensure the flows to the downstream primary stormwater network, downstream flood risk and flood hazards are mitigated, subject to a long-term and committed maintenance regime.

The E36.9.2 flood hazard risk assessment for the off-site effects of the development in relation to 17 & 19 John Rymer Place and 27a and 47 John Rymer Place are accepted by HWD.

Flooding (On- The flooding on-site effects are documented in the updated SMP and Appendix L Civil site) design report and drawings prepared for the Covid19 Fast Track application). Although the freeboard proposed are compliant with the Building Act and the SW code of E36.9.2 practice, the Unitary plan E36.9.2 requires assessment of the food hazard risk in relation considerations to the proposed development. A peer review of the new information and discussions with the applicants team, (Emily Afoa of Tektus ) has confirmed that the previous

concerns raised over freeboard and flood risk associated with E36.9.2 assessment criteria have been adequately addressed.

The design of the Stormwater network; while complex, provides a high level of redundancy and mitigation to both the propose development and downstream properties.

The applicant’s consultant (Tektus) has also recommended that a site specific flood management plan be incorporated into the Standard operating procedures and emergency management protocols for the retirement village operations. We would concur with this recommendation.

Going forward in order for Rymans to gain approval for a connection to Auckland Council’s Stormwater network and vesting of new stormwater network, a stormwater management plan is required under the RegionWide Network Discharge Consent (DIS60069613)

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 6

This process and approval sits outside of any resource consent process and any determination by the Environmental Protection Agency cannot authorise an approval under the above Council Discharge Consent. Initial discussions with Rymans have indicated that they have understood and accepted this process and are wishing to engage with Council to gain this approval.

The assessments and discussions to date and recent updates to the stormwater management plan will be used by the applicant to continue the discussions with Council and Healthy Waters to be authorised under this region wide network discharge consent.

1. Discharge of No high contaminant generating areas. A separate private SW network is proposed for contaminants the road areas. Private Stormwater360 devices proposed for collection of contaminants Minimise the off the driveway. generation and discharge of contaminants (including gross Stormwater pollutants) and stormwater flows at source

Receiving The site is not located within a SMAF area; however, some onsite retention has been environment allowed for. Note the flows from the site for smaller rainfall events will increase slightly SMAF / E1 due to the increase impervious area. The detention tank will not operate in smaller considerations rainfall events. Retain /restore The site is very steep and the outlet of the stormwater pipe network discharges to the hydrology as John Rymer Place tributary stream and ultimately the Purewa creek. The Purewa creek far as is considered a low erosion risk. practicable 100m3 of retention storage tank has been allowed for to provide irrigation to the extensive landscaping and amenity areas within the Rymans development site.

Significant site The existing open stream within the site is to be re-aligned. The stream will be private features and with the downstream inlet and stormwater pipe network being a public Asset. hydrology watercourse. Note the discharge point for the stormwater network for the entire catchment including all of John Rymer Place is a short tributary of Purewa Stream, a low- grade receiving environment with, tidal influence.

Consent: Address: 223 Kohimarama Rd, Kohimarama 7

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SPECIALIST REPORT

To: Sandy Hsiao, Senior Planner, Central Resource Consents

Russell Butchers, Principal Project Lead Premium Resource Consenting Unit, Resource Consents Department

From: Ainsley Verstraeten, Principal Landscape Architect Design Review, Urban Design Unit

Date: 18.03.2021

Applicant: Ryman Healthcare Limited

Application: FAST TRACK application | PRR00036539

223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama

Proposal: Comprehensive care retirement village

Activity Status: Discretionary

Dear Sandy,

Introduction

1. I write to provide my final technical review advice on the above application from an assessment of landscape and visual effects perspective.

2. I have visited the site and representative public viewpoint locations, reviewed the application material and the relevant provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (“AUP(OP)”), provided a request for further information and reviewed the further information provided by the applicant in response.

3. I provided a preliminary memo (dated 06.08.2020) prior to the notification decision, which is appended to this memo (Appendix 3).

4. I have also reviewed the submissions received from those persons who were notified; I have not visited the private properties of any submitters.

5. I have 13 years’ industry experience and I have worked at Auckland Council since 2014. Further details of my qualifications and experience are set out in Appendix 1.

6. Overall, it is my opinion that the application will result in low adverse landscape character effects and up to high adverse visual amenity effects on a localised environment. It is also my opinion that the application will be consistent with some relevant objectives and policies within the AUP(OP) and not with others.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 1 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

Relevant application material reviewed

7. The application material reviewed was outlined in my preliminary memo, including the additional information received as part of the original S92 response.

8. The following information was requested as part of the S92 further information request and was not provided.

Include a red line on the visual simulations showing the complying height standard. This is to understand the potential adverse visual dominance effects exceeding this height.

9. This information would have assisted my assessment in terms of accurately understanding the visual effects of the development above the height standard in the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone. This is considered to be fairly typical information that many developments that seek to infringe permitted height standards provide with their applications. I do however acknowledge that cross sections and elevations have been provided with the application, so I have utilised this information to undertake my assessment. I am of the opinion that the requested information would have assisted submitters in understanding what could be realistically anticipated on the site.

10. I have also read the letter to Auckland Council, dated 12 February 2021, in relation to the fast-track application and associated documents including the response to the pre- hearing S92 response. This response included additional cross sections through neighbouring properties. The following information was requested and was not provided.

Photosimulations are requested from:

a. 3a John Rymer Place – outdoor living and second floor

b. 19a John Rymer Place – outdoor living and second floor

c. 45a John Rymer Place – outdoor living and second floor

d. 247a Kohimarama Road – outdoor living and second floor

Note: This information is requested subject to those landowners giving their approval for the applicant to access their property. If access has been declined by these landowners please demonstrate this.

11. This information would have assisted my assessment in terms of accurately understanding the visual amenity effects of the development on directly adjoining residents who have submitted on the application. It is common practice for applicants to provide these (or attempt to) following receipt of public submissions, prior to the hearing.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 2 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

Proposal

12. A description of the proposal is included within the application AEE; however, to summarise, the proposed retirement village comprises of:

• A main village centre building (B01) containing care rooms, village amenities and basement parking. • Five apartment buildings (B02-B06) located above a podium carpark. • Communal open space areas

13. The proposed buildings step down the sloping site and vary in height from three to six levels. Several retaining walls are required including one up to 6.18m high along the site’s north-western boundary. A landscape masterplan has been prepared for the site which includes the retention of two areas of native planting along the periphery of the site (with the progressive removal of weed species), a row of Pohutukawa trees along the Kohimarama Road frontage and a large Oak tree at this entrance. The masterplan includes mounding of earth against the southern podium edge to reduce the visibility of these walls.

Statutory Context

14. I am aware of the statutory provisions which apply under the AUP(OP). I understand the site is zoned MHU and no overlay or precinct provisions apply. Relevant resource consenting requirements from a landscape and visual perspective, are buildings that do not comply with the relevant yard, height and height in relation to boundary standards, earthworks, vegetation clearance in proximity to the intermittent watercourse and comprehensive development signage.

15. I am relying on the discussion within the application AEE which sets out further information in relation to these statutory provisions and records that the proposal overall is a discretionary activity.

16. I have taken the above statutory context into account when reviewing the proposal.

Methodology

17. The application landscape and visual effects assessment (LVEA) by R.A. Skidmore is set out according to recognised landscape assessment methods 1. It does however use a slightly different rating scale. Typically, a seven-point rating scale (extreme, very high, high, moderate, low, very low and negligible) is utilised; whereas Ms Skidmore has utilised a seven-point scale that includes positive effects. The scale does not include descriptors so for clarity I have utilised the scale included in Appendix 2 of this memo.

18. Ten visual simulations have been provided as part of the application. They are representative of the viewing audience from public roads in the immediate vicinity and more distant views. They have been provided in both panoramic and single frame, with the panoramic views offering more context, although with distortion at the edges and the single frame allowing ‘ground truthing’ onsite. I have utilised both, to undertake my assessment. These photos are taken from public viewpoints, however, in lieu of any simulated images from private viewpoints, I have utilised these to make a judgement on the visual effects that may be experienced by some private audiences.

19. I have not visited private properties, so this assessment review is based on my site visits to the public realm and desktop studies.

1 NZILA Best Practice Note: Landscape Assessment and Sustainable management 10.1 and Auckland Council Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment Guidelines (2017).

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 3 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

Review comments

Landscape Character Effects

20. I agree with the description of the site as included within the LVEA particularly the undeveloped nature within an established suburb. It is somewhat of an anomaly within the area given it is undeveloped and of such a large scale, it appears as an area of open space that contributes to local amenity values. I agree therefore that the proposed village will result in considerable landscape change although this is likely to be the case with any development on a large vacant site. For this reason, my assessment focuses on the effects of this development over and above what could be anticipated within the MHU zone, rather than a hypothetical development referenced within the LVEA.

21. In the context of the site, the MHU zone follows the spine of Kohimarama Road and includes Selwyn College and St Thomas’ School. Beyond this, properties are zoned Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS). When considering objective H5.2(2) “development is in keeping with the neighbourhoods planned urban built character of predominantly three-storey buildings,…” I consider the extent of the neighbourhood to be the other MHU zoned properties (orange) within the map shown below (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 – AUP zoning map

22. The MHU zone anticipates a change in the appearance of existing neighbourhoods (from one-two storey detached dwellings) over time that includes a mix of detached dwellings, terrace housing and low-rise apartments that are predominantly three-storeys and surrounded by open space2. The proposed village will be a series of buildings that are three to six storeys high surrounded by open space that consists of above podium planting, existing vegetation, new native planting and amenity planting within the development. Height infringements are between 6.1m and 10.4m above the AUP (OP) height standard.

23. Part of the purpose of the height standard is to achieve the planned urban built character of predominantly three storeys and to minimise visual dominance effects. The greatest height (six storeys) has been concentrated along the western boundary of the site (away from residential neighbours), or in the case of B01 internalised to the site and reducing as

2 AUP(OP) H5.2(2)

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 4 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

it steps down the slope. I support this approach. Buildings along the residential boundaries are between three and four storeys although in the case of the north eastern boundary the height standard is infringed due to the raised ground level.

24. B05 is the closest apartment building to the site’s south-eastern boundary with 15.7m separation from 27 John Rymer Place, at this corner B05 reduces to three storeys and is below the height standard. It then steps up another two storeys behind with the top floor infringing the height standard by 1.9m. Along the north-eastern boundary a 6.9m separation is provided between a stairwell within B01 and 3A John Rymer Place where it is four storeys high (three above ground) and is largely within the height standard.

25. Effects on landscape character are more greatly appreciated from wider views such as from Whytehead Crescent and Kohimarama Reserve (viewpoints 08 , 09 and 10 – see Fig. 2 below), however it is my opinion that the proposed village appropriately sits within its context from these viewpoints, which sees the development below the backdrop of vegetation ensuring it doesn’t break the skyline. While the development is not consistent with the existing neighbourhood’s suburban character the site does have the ability to absorb buildings of this height when seen in this wider context that includes the larger buildings within Selwyn College.

Fig. 2 – Map viewpoint locations

26. The muted / recessive palette of materials assists in integrating the development with lighter materials and variation ensuring the buildings are appropriately articulated to ensure they read as residential buildings as opposed to institutional. The buildings are further broken down with ‘gaps’ between apartments buildings, B01 stepping down the slope and a variety of roof forms.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 5 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

27. The site slopes away from Selwyn College towards John Rymer Place. This necessitates a series of level changes within the development including large retaining walls. These are largely internalised to the site and include planting to mitigate their adverse effects. The potential adverse effects of the proposed external facing podium walls have been minimised by mounding earth up against them and planting to integrate them into the landscape. I consider the proposed development to have appropriately responded to the site’s topography.

28. The site contains two main areas of existing vegetation, an area in the south east and an area in the north east. Both of these areas are largely being retained, where they are located around the periphery of the site, and it is proposed to remove weed species and supplement with native planting over time. The retention of this vegetation from a natural character and visual amenity perspective is important as this will continue to provide high amenity value (particularly to neighbouring residents) and assist in appropriately integrating the development into the site. I am of the opinion that the protection of this vegetation is essential. This issue was raised during the S92 stage with the applicant noting that it would not be possible due to the desire to remove weed species overtime. It is my view that a consent notice protecting the native species would be appropriate and I have recommended a condition of consent requiring a landscape management / maintenance plan to be provided that details the weed replacement programme.

29. Overall, I consider that, although the proposed development includes buildings up to six storeys, it achieves the planned urban character of “predominantly” three storeys as there is unlikely to be other sites of this scale within the neighbourhood that can absorb this height. Intensification on the site is anticipated with the size of the site allowing the proposed scale of development to be absorbed. The areas of retained vegetation assist in accommodating this height. For these reasons I consider adverse landscape character effects to be low.

Visual Effects

30. The primary viewing audience has been defined within the LVEA as five groups:

• Users of the surrounding street and open space network; • Residents of immediately adjoining residential properties; • Residents of the wider residential neighbourhood; • Users of the surrounding schools; and • Users of the shops on the corner of Kohimarama Road and Allum Street.

31. I generally agree with these groups, however I consider users of John Rymer Place to be more sensitive to change than those travelling along Kohimarama Road. This is due to the nature of a cul-de-sac which is typically only used by residents and their visitors and the greater visibility of the site from within the road. Residents living within this cul-de-sac are likely to take their visual amenity from within their own properties but also as part of the experience of travelling to and from their place of residence (although I acknowledge these views are less sensitive than those from indoor and outdoor living areas). I also note that the cul-de-sac nature of John Rymer place has resulted in the LVEA considering it to have a low number of viewers (when compared to Kohimarama Road), however consent has recently been granted for a shared path which is likely to open up the end of the cul-de-sac to member of the public.

32. While not all properties within John Rymer Place may not be directly adjoining the Ryman site, the distance these views will be experienced from are not significant enough to

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 6 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

moderate the potential adverse visual effects of the development, in my opinion. Views slightly further back from the boundary are likely to view more of the development as they move away from the site.

Fig. 3 – Location of viewpoints 01-07

33. Viewpoints 01, 02 and 03 (along Kohimarama Road) demonstrate the lack of visibility from Kohimarama Road within close proximity of the site. Views are limited to directly opposite the entrance where a one storey corner of the main building is visible. From here the proposed village will make a positive contribution to the streetscape with the retention of the Oak tree, Pohutukawa trees and permeable fencing with lower level planting to assist in integrating. The proposed signage is discreet and simple and will complement the frontage. The high retaining wall along the boundary with Selwyn College will be visible however the proposed planting will mitigate visual effects from this location, over time.

34. The existing Pohutukawa trees are within the site and have clear trunks meaning there will be relatively clear views beneath their canopies towards the village, however between here and B01 there is a large area of native planting and specimen trees proposed so this will assist in filtering views towards the building. There is an approximate level change of 4.2m between the proposed fence and B01 so any planting here will need to be of an appropriate scale if it is to assist in integrating the fence and filter views to the building. The certification of a detailed landscape plan is recommended as a condition of consent, with my recommendation that a specific requirement for this planting to be included.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 7 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

35. In viewpoint 02, dwellings along the Kohimarama Road frontage in this location are typically single storey so the proposed village will appear above these. These sites are also zoned MHU, so over time this may change. This section of B01 is three storeys, however everything in this view is technically over height due to the original ground level being lower (see Fig. 4 below). It is understood that written approval has been provided by the owners of 245 Kohimarama Road, so effects on these residents have been disregarded.

Fig 4 – B01, north east elevation and perspective elevation.

36. Viewpoint 02 represents a public view of users of Kohimarama Road. I agree with the LVEA that the building will not appear as a prominent feature. I rate visual effects on public users to be very low. In lieu of visual simulations from private residences, I have used this view to assist in assessing visual effects on private audiences being those within 247, 247A, 249 and 249A Kohimarama Road. It appears from drawings that B01 is a sufficient distance away from these properties, that it does not infringe HIRB standards and for the most part only infringes the height standard by 1.2m-2.0m. Existing vegetation, low native planting and a mixture of exotic trees are proposed to be planted in this location which is likely to assist in reducing visual effects for these properties. However, further information is required from the applicant to confirm the final details of planting in this location, as this will be important in order to minimise the bulk of the blank edge of the stairwell. I have included this within the recommended conditions of consent. I consider the level of adverse visual effects for the residents living in these properties is likely to be low (once planting establishes).

37. Viewpoint 04 represents a view towards the site entrance from John Rymer Place. In my opinion this is representative of both public and private views. The section of B01 that faces the entrance here is two levels with basement parking below. Due to the raised ground level here this section of B01 infringes the height standard although it is only three storeys high (see Fig. 5 below). The angled roof forms of this elevation are similar in

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 8 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

character to what could be expected from a three-storey terrace house that could be developed on the site. This is an appropriate treatment for the amenity of residents living along this boundary (9, 11 and 17 John Rymer Place).

Fig.5 – South eastern elevation

38. The street front wall and signage is appropriate to this setting and the proposed planting will contribute to the streetscape character. Planting along the basement edge needs to be reconsidered to avoid this wall appearing blank and solid. Climbers and trees or larger scale shrubs would assist in further integrating this section into the landscape. This suggestion is included in the recommended condition below.

39. In this view almost the full length of the development can be appreciated. The approach of stepping down the site and gaps between buildings results in a varied skyline and layering of built form. That being said, in my opinion, the village will appear as a dominant element within this view due to the site’s topography, having large buildings located along a ridgeline and the general scale and mass of the buildings when seen together.

40. Variation in materiality, rooflines, modulation and articulation assist in breaking down the bulk and mass of buildings. However, I am of the opinion that this does not go far enough in mitigating the adverse visual dominance effects of the large buildings on this site. Techniques that could be incorporated into the design that would assist in reducing visual dominance would be to setback the upper floors of B02, B04 and B06 from the north and south edges or to utilise more glazing along the top floors to make the buildings ‘top’ feel more lightweight. This would reduce the length of rooflines along the skyline with larger gaps between buildings.

41. In addition to this, removing the fifth floor of B03 would assist in reducing the visible bulk from this view and a greater appreciation of the space and layering between the apartment buildings behind.

42. I consider adverse visual effects on residents who travel along John Rymer Place to be low, this is because it will not be a static view towards the site, nor will it be the main focus of their view. Distance and elevation also have a moderating effect whereby the buildings will not appear to ‘tower’ over the street from this location. For residents living within 257 Kohimarama Road, 2B, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 17 John Rymer Place, I consider their visual

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 9 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

amenity to be adversely affected to a moderate degree. This is because their outdoor living areas are oriented towards the site and are two storeys high or elevated above the site. I have not taken into account offsite vegetation, as this cannot be relied upon for mitigation purposes.

43. I have not been able to make a final assessment on residents who live within 251 or 255 Kohimarama Road, 3 or 3A John Rymer Place because I am uncertain as to whether they will have views above B01 towards the ridgeline apartment buildings. I consider their foreground views to be similar to that anticipated within the MHU zone and the site wide elevations suggest that only the tops of the apartment buildings would be visible. My preliminary assessment is that effects on these residents is likely to be low. However, a visual simulation from this location would have assisted in informing my determination of effects.

44. Viewpoint 05 represents a view further down John Rymer Place looking up towards B01 and B03 from a lower elevation. The south-eastern elevation of B03 is four storeys high and at its closest point is located approximately 21.0m from the boundary with 19A John Rymer Place. The fourth level infringes the height standard here by up to 2.9m as illustrated in Fig. 6 below and is well within the requirements of the HIRB standard.

Fig. 6 – South eastern elevation of B03

45. From a visual dominance or visual effects perspective, the lower elevation of the viewpoint (below the site) contributes to the buildings appearing more visually dominant than if they were on a flat site. In a sense, anything over-height on this site has the potential to appear visually dominant. I consider the visual effects resulting from this extra height to be noticeable, with B03 appearing to tower over the two- three storey residential dwellings below. I acknowledge that a building of complying height would also appear above these houses although it would not have such an overbearing effect.

46. I consider adverse visual amenity effects from this viewpoint to be high. This could be reduced to moderate if the fifth floor of B03 were to be removed as I see this as exacerbating the visual dominance due to the visibility of two stacked rooflines resulting in a heavy and bulky top to the building. This effect is potentially minimised as the viewer moves closer towards the building.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 10 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

Fig. 7 – Viewpoint 05

47. Viewpoint 06 is located at the cul-de-sac end of John Rymer Place and looks up towards the apartment buildings at the southern end of the site. B03, B04, B05 and B06 are all visible in this view. The separation between apartment buildings and the stepping down of the site is visible creating a layering of buildings and a varied skyline. B06 is the most prominent in this view, it is the longest of the apartment buildings and exceeds the height standard by up to 10.9m. The south eastern elevation is five storeys high and drops down to four on the southern end.

Fig. 8 – South eastern elevation of B06

48. Unlike the other apartment buildings, B06 does not step down the site towards John Rymer Place. It is my opinion that this results in the building appearing visually dominant with three floors visible above the existing two storey dwellings, a noticeable change from the anticipated three storeys of the MHU zone. I support the approach to stepping down at the southern end as this is an appropriate termination to the village.

49. In the centre of this view is B05, which is three, four and five storeys high. At the closest point the building is 15.7m away from 27 John Rymer Place and is largely within the height standard, however the fifth floor infringes by 6.6m. This has resulted in the south-western

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 11 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

end of B05 appearing prominent within this view, however the orientation of this building has meant that this infringement is not of a considerable length.

50. As with viewpoint 05 this view is from a lower elevation than the site (7.9m lower than viewpoint 05), meaning that any additional height will be noticeable and reduce the amount of visible sky. I consider adverse visual amenity effects on users of John Rymer Place to be moderate and for residents living within properties that directly adjoin the site (27, 35, 35A, 1/37, 2/37, 45A John Rymer Place), I consider their visual amenity values to be adversely affected to a high degree. In addition to these residents, I also consider those living within properties fronting onto John Rymer Place on either side to be affected to a moderate degree. These adverse effects will be particularly apparent for those with north facing outdoor living and the relative viewpoint elevation.

51. This rating is primarily due to the height of B06, effects could be reduced to an acceptable level if the proposed height was lowered to between three and four storeys graduating up from the southern end which would increase the amount of visible sky above the ridgeline.

52. Viewpoint 07 from Whytehead Crescent sits at 22m above the location of viewpoint 6 and approximately 172m from the boundary of the site. This represents the private viewing audience of residents who live within properties that have views towards the site (5 – 27 Whytehead Crescent and 1-7 Harvey Place. B02 is the tallest building in this view which exceeds the height standard by 10.2m (the top three floors). This exceedance in height will alter the skyline (or visible sky) to a noticeable degree. However, distance does have a moderating effect in this instance, so I consider adverse visual dominance effects on these residents to be low. However, I consider effects on their visual amenity to be moderate due to the reduction in visible skyline above what could be anticipated by a development that complied with the height standards.

53. This could be reduced to an acceptable level by reducing the height of proposed building B02 to four to five storeys (rather than five and six storeys as currently proposed). The recommended changes to B03 mentioned earlier in this memo would ensure the village continued to ‘step’ down the site in response to the sites topography.

Relevant objectives, polices and assessment criteria

54. It is my opinion that the application will be consistent with the following relevant objectives and policies of the AUP(OP):

• Objective H5.2(2): Development is in keeping with the neighbourhood's planned urban built character of predominantly three-storey buildings, in a variety of forms and surrounded by open space. • Policy H5.3(1) Enable a variety of housing types at higher densities, including low- rise apartments and integrated residential development such as retirement villages • Policy H5.3(2) Require the height, bulk, form and appearance of development and the provision of sufficient setbacks and landscaped areas to achieve an urban built character of predominantly three storeys, in a variety of forms.

55. I consider the proposed development to be consistent with the above objectives and policies, as the assessment from a landscape and visual effects perspective is concerning the character of the neighbourhood and not just the site. The design amendments that I have recommended within this memo would assist in further integrating the development into a built character of ‘predominantly’ three storeys.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 12 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

56. There are, however, relevant objectives and policies that I consider the proposed development to be not consistent with and that relates to residential amenity3 from a visual amenity and visual dominance perspective. This is due to the exceedance of the building height standard which has a purpose 4 to achieve the planned urban built character of predominantly three storeys, but also to minimise visual dominance effects. It is my opinion that the proposed village will create visual dominance and visual amenity effects on, not only some of the residents who live within adjoining properties to the south-east, but also those living within properties beyond and experiencing the amenity of John Rymer Place.

Submissions

57. I have read the 45 submissions received from notified residents. The following issues were raised that are relevant to this assessment:

• Higher height in terms of neighbourhood character and visual impact; • Scale / bulk and mass; • Visual amenity – visual dominance and changes to outlook for residents; • Retention / protection of existing native planting; • Proposed planting not appropriate; • The height in relation to boundary (HiRTB) to 3A John Rymer Place – concern regarding Building B1 and the stairwell that looks to be one whole story above the rest of the building and is only 6.9 meters from the shared boundary; and • Not in-keeping with the suburb’s 'layout and design'.

58. I have addressed a number of these issues already within this memo; however, submissions have raised some additional points that I will address.

59. Visual amenity of neighbouring residents.

I have discussed this issue within my memo more generally, however the following is a more detailed analysis in relation to potential effects on specific submitters.

Residents living within 5, 3A John Rymer Place and 247, 247A, 255 and 249A Kohimarama Road have all submitted on the application and I have grouped them together as they raise similar concerns and would be considered to have a similar view of the development. The image below is of these properties taken from within the site.

Fig. 9 – View towards the North Eastern neighbours

3 AUP (OP) H5.2(3) and H5.3.(4) 4 AUP (OP) H5.6.4

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 13 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

5 John Rymer Place - submissions 11720, 11732, 11820.

60. Residents within this property raise the issue that the development should comply with the height standard as it will result in light being blocked from many residences.

61. My assessment does not consider sunlight aspects, however, as mentioned previously, I consider the future outlook of this neighbour as a result of the application is likely to be consistent with what could be anticipated within the MHU zone however additional photo simulations from within private properties along this boundary would help to confirm this.

3A John Rymer Place - submissions 11770 and 11771

62. Residents within this property raise the issue that the development should comply with the height standard as it will dominate the neighbourhood and change the character of the existing area. They have also raised a lack of information regarding their property, request that the development be 10m from their boundary (it is currently proposed to be approximately 7m from their boundary) and that vegetation along their boundary within the site be retained to assist with privacy and habitat for many birds.

63. I agree that more information, specifically photo simulations or perspectives, would assist in order to fully understand the potential adverse effects on residents within this property. Additional cross sections were provided as part of the Fast Track application however these do not show the proposed planting.

64. Fig. 9 above and the updated cross sections 5 demonstrate the height of the existing vegetation along this property is in line with the first floor level of the house so it offers limited screening for these residents. The landscape plan does not show this vegetation as being retained with a retaining wall up to 2.5m proposed along the boundary of this property. The dwelling at 3A is located above B01 which is between two and three storeys high at this location. Subject to the further information being provided, I recommend that the proposed trees adjacent B01 be of a large scale and planted at a large grade to assist with screening and that opportunities for large scale planting be considered for above the retaining wall.

249A Kohimarama Road - submission 11806

65. Similar to above, residents within this property raise the issue that the development will dominate the neighbourhood due to the numerous buildings exceeding the permitted height standard. They have also raised a lack of information for their property and are concerned about the closeness to their boundary and exceeding the height standard by 10m resulting in a visually dominant building overlooking their house and impact on the enjoyment of their home. They request the building to be 10m from their boundary (it is currently proposed to be 7m from the boundary).

66. Fig. 7 above identifies this dwelling as being two storeys with views towards the site and a large retaining wall on its boundary. A portion of existing vegetation is proposed to be retained along this edge with additional low mixed natives and exotic trees planted between B01 and the submitter’s property.

67. The cross section below (Fig. 8) from the landscape elevations appears to show a 12m separation from the stairwell and the submitters property. The new sections 3 and 86 shows an 8m separation and possibly a slight infringement to HIRB. There appears to be space between the retaining wall and the submitter’s property (2.5m – 3m) to include

5 Dwg 044-RCT-S01-A3-040 section 4 Rev C 6 Dwg 044-RCT-S01-A3-050 section 3 and 044-RCTS01-A3-051 section 8

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 14 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

trees that would assist in screening the proposed village from these neighbours, although the trees proposed adjacent to B01 in this location will reach a height of 4m within 5 years.

68. From the information provided I consider there to be an appropriate degree of separation between B01 and the submitter’s property and, given B01’s lower elevation, I do not consider there to be inappropriate visual dominance effects. Taller parts of B01 will be visible to this submitter however I consider this to be at a sufficient distance that will not cause adverse visual dominance effects.

Fig. 8 – Cross section between B01 and 249A Kohimarama Road

247A Kohimarama Road - submission 11804

69. Similar to above, residents are concerned with the height of the development and consider the visual impact of “21m towers” in a residential zone to not improve the look of the neighbourhood. From a landscape perspective, these concerns are a neighbourhood / landscape character issue which I have already addressed earlier in this memo.

70. Existing vegetation is proposed to be retained in proximity to this submitter’s property which will assist to provide a buffer, I also note this property is at a higher elevation so the majority of B01 (which is three storeys along this edge) will be below this neighbour.

247 Kohimarama Road - submissions 11903 and 11904

71. These submitters raise concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposed building height (particularly the main building) and consider three storeys to be more appropriate. They also consider their privacy to be compromised.

72. I have addressed visual effects on residents within this property from viewpoint 2 earlier in this memo.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 15 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

255 Kohimarama Road - submission 11825

73. This submitter raises concerns regarding the height of the development being out of character with the surrounding homes. They request buildings 1, 2, 4 and 6 (main building and the three apartment buildings along the Selwyn College boundary) to be reduced to three storeys as it would be less intrusive.

74. I have addressed concerns regarding neighbourhood character and have recommended a number of changes to building heights across the site. While I agree that three storeys would be less intrusive, I consider the site to have the capacity to absorb a greater level of additional height and this has been outlined previously.

2B John Rymer Place – submissions 11851 and 11877

75. These submitters live near the top of John Rymer Place, near to the entrance to the site. They do not consider the proposal to be in keeping with its context and that it does not respond to the scale and intensity of the surrounding neighbourhood, nor have the same level of visual amenity to the community as the current environment. They consider it to dominate the surroundings and will be large and oppressive in the landscape. They seek changes to the proposal that would ensure it is consistent with the unitary plan.

76. I have addressed these issues within the landscape character effects section of this memo and I addressed visual effects on this submitter earlier where I consider these residents’ amenity values to be adversely affected to a moderate degree.

15, 21 and 25 John Rymer Place – submissions 11730, EP 5, 11845 and 11847

77. I have grouped these submissions as these properties are located within close proximity to each other and people viewing from these locations are likely to be adversely affected to a similar degree. Concerns raised include loss of visual amenity, visual dominance, planting along the southern boundary of the site, and consider it to be out of character for the area due to its height, overbearing and dominant bulk.

78. These properties are either two or three storeys high, located on the John Rymer Place street edge, one property back from the site’s boundary. 15 and 21 are separated from each other by a driveway that leads to 17, 19 and 19A John Rymer Place and all have their outdoor living areas facing north towards the site. I have discussed visual amenity and dominance effects on 15 and 21 John Rymer Place residents earlier, with viewpoint 5 including both of these dwellings within the view. Viewpoint 6 includes 25 John Rymer Place.

79. With regards to the proposed planting along the boundary with 27, 27A, 19A and 19 John Rymer Place, I consider this to be a valid concern in that planting to screen the development along this edge could create shading effects for these adjacent residents. That being said, the detail of this planting area is for native planting mix which suggests generally low native plants with small native trees such as Kowhai and Lancewood. The applicant has since proposed a condition of consent for this planting area to “include additional dense screen planting”. While the detail of this planting is unknown it is possible it could screen the development from these residents. In any case the applicant should liaise with the affected property owners before confirming species and treatment.

80. There are also five Pin Oak trees proposed adjacent to B03; and another three between B03 and B05, these are large trees however they are proposed to be planted at 28L which is a small grade for a specimen tree, so will take some time to reach a height that is capable of providing any form of screening or integration mitigation. I have addressed the remaining concerns elsewhere within this memo.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 16 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

19A John Rymer Place – submission EP8

81. This property is directly adjoining the site along the south-eastern boundary. The outdoor living areas of this property faces north towards the site and is approximately 3m below the site with a retaining wall along the boundary. The dwelling is two storeys with living areas on the first floor and bedrooms above. The photo below (fig. 9) is one I took on my site visit, which demonstrates their location below the site.

Fig. 9 – Photo of the submitter’s property from within the site.

82. This submission raises the need for additional information that would assist in understanding more fully the adverse effects of the proposed development on them. I agree that an additional visual simulation should be provided from the living areas as well as a view from the second floor. Typically, when assessing visual amenity effects on private residential views, living areas are considered to be more sensitive to change than within bedrooms. In this instance it would be prudent to make an assessment from both areas due to the scale of the proposal and proposed infringements to the height standard.

83. However, from the information we have (both from the applicant and the submitter), I consider these residents to be impacted to a high degree. This is because, although the closest facade to the submitter’s property may not exceed the height standard significantly, the building steps up behind and these residents have the potential to view the whole site from their property. The top floor of B03 is likely to be visually dominant and the effects of the height infringements of other buildings will exacerbate this from a visual amenity perspective. Recommended changes already raised within this memo will assist in mitigating visual amenity effects as would larger specimen trees which, over time, would reach a height of 10m, planted adjacent B03 and B05.

29 John Rymer Place – submission 11824 and 11917

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 17 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

84. This property directly adjoins the site along the south-eastern boundary, with their outdoor living area appearing to be oriented towards B05. The dwelling is two – three storeys high with approximately 13m between B05 and the submitter’s property. The application material includes a 3D perspective and cross section from their neighbours property at 27 John Rymer Place and a cross section has been provided with the fast-track application through this submitter’s property.

85. Concerns raised include the design of the buildings not fitting with the suburb’s layout and that design and would appear bulkier and more industrial, which would result in a dominant and overbearing appearance. They consider the tall buildings will block light and sky vision from their property. They would like the development to be reduced in footprint and height as these aspects of the proposal are causing the most impact.

86. A large area of existing vegetation is proposed to be retained between this property and the site, with additional planting included adjacent to B05. It is likely that these residents will have views to the southern elevation of B05 either through the existing vegetation or above it. The top floor of this building is over the height standard by 4.4m and will be visible above the lower portion of the building. They will also have a direct view towards B06 which is the longest apartment building and is five storeys high for the majority of its length. This exceedance of height over this length, along the skyline will be a noticeable change above what this submitter could have anticipate for the site. Therefore, I consider this submitter’s visual amenity values to be impacted to a moderate degree (lower dependant on the density of the retained vegetation).

41 and 43 John Rymer Place – submission EP 6 and 11821

87. These two properties are two storeys high and front onto the northern side of John Rymer Place. Both submitters raise similar issues with regards to visual dominance and landscape character. They are both unlikely to view the development from their properties however this is unknown without visiting their living areas. I have addressed their landscape character and amenity concerns already within this memo.

45a and 47 John Rymer Place - submissions 11817 and 11890

88. These properties are adjacent to the southern boundary and are closest to the four-level end of B06. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing vegetation between these properties and B06 (and remove weed species). They raise similar concerns to others in terms of visual dominance, loss of visible skyline and buildings that dominate the landscape. It is unknown what the visibility from these properties will be although it is possible views will be available from the top floors, through and above the vegetation. It is likely these submitters visual amenity will be adversely affected to at a low to moderate degree (dependant on the density of the retained vegetation).

38a John Rymer Place – submission 11870

89. This submitter’s property is down a shared driveway off John Rymer Place, it is two to three storeys high with its outdoor living areas facing towards the site. Their concerns include that the height of buildings will result in a complete loss of open sky enjoyment, loss of the entire Selwyn College ridgeline view and that the exceedance of height far exceeds the expectations for the site. They recommend a reduction in height of two storeys for all the apartments buildings, planting of trees on the boundary before construction and earthworks.

90. This submitter is located at a slightly higher elevation than properties fronting onto John Rymer Place and, given the three-storey nature of their dwelling their outlook towards the site, is likely to have a greater appreciation of site and buildings along the ridgeline. Their view will be directed towards B05 and they will also have views towards B03, B04

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 18 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

and B06. The taller buildings are located along the ridgeline as a way to minimise effects on more sensitive neighbours, however it does mean there will be a greater loss of skyline for residents further away from the site boundary. There is however a degree of skyline loss anticipated under the AUP (OP), and I consider the principal of locating the greatest height along the ridgeline to be an appropriate response. I consider the visual amenity of these residents to be affected to a low degree.

91. I agree with the recommendation that planting along the southern edge (where possible) should be planted prior to construction and I have included this as a recommended condition of consent.

1/28 John Rymer Place - submission 11906

92. This submitter lives in a similar location to 38a John Rymer Place although their outlook will be more directed towards B01 and B03. I consider them to be affected to a similar degree.

54 John Rymer Place - submission 11897

93. This submitter lives towards the southern end of the John Rymer Place cul-de-sac. It is a two-three storey building with multiple outdoor living areas facing towards the site. They raise similar concerns to other submitters regarding the height of the buildings and the impacts on the character of the area. They also raise concerns regarding the protection of the bush area being retained on the site, similar to concerns I raised early in the processing of this application. They recommend that the bush should be protected by a covenant and I agree.

Summary

94. Overall, I have assessed that adverse effects from the proposal range from very low to high. I consider overall the landscape character effects to be low.

95. Based on the viewpoints, I have come to the following conclusions.

VP 01 and 03 – Very low for public and private audiences

VP 02 – Public audiences very low, private audiences low

VP 04 – Public road users low, residents between low and moderate

VP 05 – Moderate to high

VP 06 - Residents as users of John Rymer Place moderate, residents who view the site from within their properties moderate to high.

VP 07 – Residents with north facing views where the exceedance in height above the ridgeline impacts on their skyline. Effects will be up to moderate.

Recommended changes to further reduce effects

96. I recommend that, in order to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse landscape effects, the following changes to the proposal should be adopted by the applicant.

Landscape treatment:

97. Planting along the basement edge of B01 as it fronts the entrance off John Rymer Place. Planting needs to ensure it screens the basement wall to avoid this wall appearing blank

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 19 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

and solid. Climbers, trees and medium sized shrubs would assist in integrating the building into the landscape.

98. Planting between the edge of B01 and the boundary with 3A John Rymer Place and 249A Kohimarama Road. Given the narrowness of this space it is recommended that specimen tree species in this location (adjacent the stairwell) are upright and tall species in order to assist in screening the blank stairwell edge. Planting of tall shrubs (and trees if possible) above the retaining wall shall also be included.

99. Planting between the Kohimarama Road fence line and B01 needs to be of a medium scale in order to integrate the fence and filter views towards the building given the level change in this location.

100. Larger specimen trees planted against B03 and B05 – able to grow to a height of at least 10m.

101. Pin Oak specimen trees between B03 and B05 to be planted at a minimum grade of 45L in order to provide greater integration of the buildings sooner.

Architectural treatment:

102. In order to reduce visual dominance from VP 04 – setback of upper floors of B02, B04 and B06 from the north and south edges or utilise more glazing along the top floors to make the buildings ‘top’ feel more lightweight. This would reduce the length of rooflines along the skyline and produce larger gaps between buildings. In addition, removing the fifth floor of B03 would assist in reducing the visible bulk from this view and a greater appreciation of the space between the buildings behind.

103. Removal of the fifth floor of B03 would reduce effects when viewed from VP05. This extra floor exacerbates visual dominance due to the visibility of the two stacked rooflines.

104. Height of B06 reduced to three and four stories to increase the amount of visible sky above the ridgeline as seen from VP06.

105. Height of B02 reduced to four and five stories, B03 reduced in order for the village to still appear as stepping down the site.

Recommended Conditions of Consent

106. I recommend the following amendments to the landscape condition proposed by the applicant. This does not change my overall opinion that the proposal, as I have assessed it, results in inappropriate adverse visual dominance (amenity) effects.

LANDSCAPING

Prior to obtaining building consent the completion of building construction activities and prior to the implementation of any landscape treatment on-site, the consent holder shall provide a finalised set of landscape design drawings and supporting written documentation, which are to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified professional, to the Team Leader, Compliance Monitoring – Central for certification. The submitted information shall be consistent with the Landscape Master Plan prepared by Design Squared (Drawing SK100), dated 12 February 2020 and shall include the following details:

a) An annotated planting plan(s) which communicate the proposed location and extent of all areas of planting, including:

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 20 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

I. additional dense screen planting along the southern boundary adjacent to 27A, 19A and 19 John Rymer Place; (in consultation with these neighbours) II. Screen planting along the base of B01 as it fronts the entrance from John Rymer Place. This is to screen the basement wall. III. Planting between the edge of B01 and the boundary with 3A John Rymer Place and 249A Kohimarama Road shall include upright tree species adjacent the stairwell (planted at a minimum grade of 45L) to assist in screening the blank stairwell edge. Planting above the retaining wall to include tall shrubs (and trees where possible) to assist in screening for these neighbours. IV. Planting between the Kohimarama Road fence line and B01 needs to reach a scale that is able to integrate the fence and filter views towards the building given the level change in this location. V. Specimen trees planted around B03 and B05 shall be able to grow to a height of at least 10m and planted at a minimum grade of 45L. VI. Where planting is proposed to screen plant that may have been amended during detailed design.

b) Annotated cross-sections and / or design details with key dimensions to illustrate that adequate widths and depths are provided for planter boxes / garden beds / raised beds above the podium;

c) A plant schedule based on the submitted plant list which details specific plant species, plant sourcing, the number of plants, height and / or grade (litre) / Pb size at time of planting;

d) Details of draft specification documentation for any specific drainage, soil preparation, tree pits, staking, irrigation and mulching requirements;

e) An annotated pavement plan and related specifications, detailing proposed site levels and the materiality and colour of all proposed hard surfacing;

f) The location and type of all seats, bins, raised planters, lights, fences, walls, cycle racks and other structural landscape design elements;

g) A landscape maintenance and implementation plan (report) and related drawings and specifications for all aspects of the finalised landscape design, including in relation to the following requirements:

i. Programme for weed removal of retained stands of vegetation and replacement with suitable native species.

ii. Irrigation;

iii. Weed and pest control;

iv. Plant replacement;

v. Inspection timeframes; and

vi. Contractor responsibilities.

Implementation

Prior to construction and earthworks (if possible), the consent holder shall implement (and protect from ongoing construction damage) the dense planting screen along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to properties 27A, 19A and 19 John Rymer Place. The remainder

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 21 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

of the landscape design shall be implemented prior to occupation and use of individual buildings on the site, and within an appropriate planting season, in accordance with condition # and, thereafter, retain and maintain this landscaping (planting, pavement, and street furniture) in perpetuity.

Retained Native Planting

A consent notice shall be included on the property certificate of title that protects the areas shown on the ‘Site Tree Plan’, drawn by Design Squared, as ‘retained existing vegetation’. The consent notice will allow the gradual removal of weed species as set out within the landscape maintenance and implementation plan, and protect the areas shown in perpetuity.

Conclusion

107. Following my review of the application, from an assessment of landscape and visual effects perspective, I consider the proposal will result in a dramatic change to the site’s character, due to its current undeveloped state. I acknowledge that any redevelopment of the site within the limits of the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban zone would also result in a dramatic change to the existing site character. The development is generally consistent with the intent of the MHU zone, although it will result in adverse visual amenity effects on people that range from very low to high.

Please let me know if you require any further clarification

Kind regards,

Ainsley Verstraeten

Principal Landscape Architect BLA, NZILA Registered Design Review Urban Design Unit Auckland Council 135 Albert Street Direct Dial: 021 807 410 Email: [email protected]

Report Peer reviewed by: Peter Kensington

Date: 18.03.2021

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 22 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

Appendix 1:

Ainsley Verstraeten Principal Landscape Architect Auckland Council, Plans and Places Department Design Review, Urban Design Unit. Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (2005), Lincoln University, NZ Registered Member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects I have been with Auckland Council in the design review team since July 2014. I have 13 years industry experience in NZ and the UK, in both the public and private sector. In my current role as Principal Landscape Architect, I specialise in design review and the assessment of landscape and visual effects for projects of various scales. I am responsible for reviewing applications for resource consent including major infrastructure projects, residential and mixed-use developments, subdivisions, public realm and projects within sensitive landscapes such as coastal environments and outstanding natural landscapes. This includes providing landscape and visual effects memos for the following retirement villages: Ryman Healthcare Scott Point Ryman Healthcare Tropicana Metlifecare Beachlands Metlifecare Orion Point Metlifecare Red Beach (S127 variation) Summerset Hobsonville Summerset Parnell Kumeu Retirement Village East Coast Road, Glenvar Retirement Village Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa Retirement Village

I have attended and provided evidence at council hearings over the last 4 years.

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 23 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

Appendix 2: Adverse effects rating scale

EXTREME Total divergence or loss from the anticipated character, distinctive features or quality of the landscape resulting in a complete change to the landscape or outlook anticipated VERY HIGH Major change or loss from the anticipated character, distinctive features or quality of the landscape or a significant reduction in the perceived amenity of the outlook MORE HIGH Noticeable change from the anticipated character or distinctive THAN features of the landscape or reduction in the perceived amenity MINOR or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements MODERATE Appreciable or partial change to parts of the local landscape; small reduction in some amenity values, including visual intrusion. Divergence from the anticipated character. LOW A slight or minor loss from the anticipated landscape character, features or landscape quality. New elements are not MINOR uncharacteristic within the receiving landscape, limited change to amenity values and a low level of visual intrusion VERY LOW Limited change to landscape character and amenity values or the proposed development is barely discernible with little change to the anticipated character, features or landscape quality LESS THAN NEGLIGIBLE No appreciable change or the proposed development is barely MINOR discernible or there are no changes to the existing character, features or landscape quality.

Appendix 3:

Appended preliminary memo

Landscape Effects – Fast Track Specialist Report Page 24 PRR00036539 | 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place

PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SPECIALIST REPORT

To: Sandy Hsiao, Senior Planner

Russell Butchers, Principal Project Lead Premium Resource Consenting Unit, Resource Consents Department

From: Ainsley Verstraeten, Principal Landscape Architect Design Review Unit, Auckland Design Office

Date: 06.08.2020 (updated)

Applicant: Ryman Healthcare Limited

Application: BUN60353138 | 223 Kohimarama Road & 7 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama

Proposal: Comprehensive care retirement village

Activity Status: Discretionary

Dear Sandy,

Introduction

1. I write to provide my preliminary technical review advice on the above application from a landscape and visual effects perspective.

2. I have visited the site and viewpoint locations, reviewed the application material and the relevant provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (“AUP(OP)”), provided a request for further information and reviewed the further information provided by the application.

3. This preliminary technical review is to initially assist with your notification (under section 95 the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”)) recommendation, with substantive (section 104 RMA) reporting and decision making to come after that determination.

Application material reviewed

4. I have reviewed the following relevant application material:

Submitted with the original application

. “Assessment of Environmental Effects” Prepared by Mitchell Daysh Ltd, dated February 2020;

. “Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment” (LVEA), Prepared by R.A Skidmore, dated February 2020;

. “Urban Design Review” Prepared by Clinton Bird, dated 14 February 2020;

Landscape Architecture – Specialist Report Page 1 BUN60353138 | 223 Kohimarama Road]

. “Landscape Plans and elevations”, prepared by Design Squared Landscape Architects, dated 12 February 2020;

. “Assessment Site Plans and Drawings”, prepared by Beca, dated February 2020;

. “Resource Consent Site Plans and Drawings”, prepared by Beca, dated February 2020

. “Visual simulations”, prepared by Ryman Healthcare Limited, note dated.

. “Civil Engineering drawings”, prepared by Beca, dated February 2020.

Submitted as further information in response to Section 92 Request

. S92 response memo from Mitchell Daysh (including updated drawings and Architectural, Urban Design and Landscape and Visual response), dated 17.04.2020;

. S92 response memo from Mitchell Daysh (including updated drawings), dated 14.05.2020;

. S92 response memo from Mitchell Daysh (including memo from Design Squared and R.A. Skidmore), dated 21.05.2020;

. S92 response memo from Mitchell Daysh (including updated drawings), dated 26.05.2020.

Statutory Context

5. I am aware the statutory provisions which apply under the AUP(OP). I understand the site is zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Urban and no overlay or precinct provisions apply.

Review comments – landscape and visual effects

6. I agree with the application Assessment of Environmental Effects that the proposal has the potential to result in at least minor1 adverse visual effects on some people – for the purposes of a section 95B determination under the RMA. I have however adopted a slightly different rating scale that is consistent with the NZILA best practice guidance2. This is appended to the end of this memo. The difference between the two scales is that the Skidmore report includes positive effects. For notification purposes I consider ‘minor’ to align with low.

7. I have also reached a different conclusion to that of the applicant in terms of the extent of these affected persons. My assessment is people that may be adversely affected (to at least a low degree) as a result of the proposal’s landscape and visual effects, extend further into John Rymer Place and include users of this road (residents who use the road to travel to and from their properties). Those who can view the development from their living areas may be adversely affected to a greater degree, however I have not undertaken this detailed analysis in terms of visiting individual properties. (Refer attached map which illustrates the location of properties, within which, there are likely to be people that I consider to be adversely affected to at a low-moderate degree).

8. The reason for this is that residents living on this cul-de-sac not only take their visual amenity from within their own properties but also as part of the experience of travelling to and from their place of residence (although I acknowledge these views are less sensitive than those from indoor and outdoor livings areas). While these properties may not be

1 Low on the rating scale provided within the LVEA 2 NZILA Landscape Assessment Best Practice Note 10.1

Landscape Architecture – Specialist Report Page 2 BUN60353138 | 223 Kohimarama Road]

directly adjoining the Ryman site, the distance these views will be experienced from are not significant enough to moderate the potential adverse visual effects of the development, in my opinion.

9. It is my opinion that residents of John Rymer Place will view the development as visually bulky, dominant and intrusive due to the height of the proposed buildings and visually heavy roof forms. The sloping nature of the site exacerbates these effects on residents living and experiencing their street at a lower elevation.

10. It is noted that existing vegetation on site is proposed to be retained as well as new planting (mixed native planting) to be established along the boundary with 19, 19A and 27A John Rymer Place. The detail of this planting is not provided as part of the application; however, the plant schedule of the typical mixed native planting detail indicates relatively small plant grades at the time of planting, which in my opinion would take some time to establish to a height that achieves any form of screening. I have therefore not relied on this vegetation as part of this assessment. In any case this planting will only assist in reducing effects for immediate neighbours only.

11. In addition, although there is existing planting proposed to be retained there is no guarantee that this planting will remain as the application proposes to remove weed species overtime. I have therefore not heavily relied on this aspect of the proposal.

12. Residents identified within properties along Whytehead Crescent also have the potential for the development to visually dominate their elevated outlook over the site and take up a greater amount of visible skyline than a development of a complying height would. It is my opinion that this is likely to adversely affect their visual amenity to between a low and moderate degree.

13. The above assessment is in consideration of the development’s greater intensity and character than anticipated within the Residential - Mixed Housing Urban zone, affecting people’s visual amenity values to a moderate degree.

14. Having said the above, it is my preliminary assessment that the proposed retirement village will sit comfortably within its landscape setting when viewed from wider representative public viewpoints (such as VPTs 8, 9 & 10) for the purposes of a section 95A determination. This would therefore align with a very low (less than minor) adverse effects rating.

15. I am also of the opinion that the proposal has many positive attributes from a landscape and visual effects perspective, although this is not taken into consideration in terms of adverse effects.

16. It is however the combined bulk, massing and height on a prominent elevated site, that will result in low – moderate (minor and more than minor) adverse effects on localised landscape and visual amenity values for certain people, above what is anticipated within this zone.

Recommendation

17. Following my preliminary review of the application from a landscape and visual effects perspective, it is my opinion that the proposal will result in at least minor adverse landscape and visual effects on the owners and occupiers of the following properties:

a. All of John Rymer Place (other than 2A)

b. 5, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 Whytehead Crescent

c. 1, 3, 5, 7 Harvey Place

Landscape Architecture – Specialist Report Page 3 BUN60353138 | 223 Kohimarama Road]

Please let me know if you require any further clarification.

Kind regards,

Ainsley Verstraeten

Principal Landscape Architect BLA NZILA (Registered) Design Review Unit Auckland Design Office Auckland Council 135 Albert St Direct Dial: 021 807 410 Email: [email protected]

Report Peer reviewed by: Peter Kensington

Date: 17 June 2020

Appendix 1 – Effects rating scale

EXTREME Total divergence or loss from the anticipated character, distinctive features or quality of the landscape resulting in a complete change to the landscape or outlook anticipated VERY HIGH Major change or loss from the anticipated character, distinctive features or quality of the landscape or a significant reduction in the perceived amenity of the outlook MORE HIGH Noticeable change from the anticipated character or distinctive THAN features of the landscape or reduction in the perceived amenity MINOR or the addition of new but uncharacteristic features and elements MODERATE Appreciable or partial change to parts of the local landscape; small reduction in some amenity values, including visual intrusion. Divergence from the anticipated character. LOW A slight or minor loss from the anticipated landscape character, features or landscape quality. New elements are not MINOR uncharacteristic within the receiving landscape, limited change to amenity values and a low level of visual intrusion VERY LOW Limited change to landscape character and amenity values or the proposed development is barely discernible with little change to the anticipated character, features or landscape quality LESS THAN NEGIGIBLE No appreciable change or the proposed development is barely MINOR discernible or there are no changes to the existing character, features or landscape quality.

Landscape Architecture – Specialist Report Page 4 BUN60353138 | 223 Kohimarama Road] Feedback from the Ōrākei Local Board of the Auckland Council on a Resource Consent Application for a Retirement Village, Kohimarama 18 March 2021

Ōrākei Local Board of the Auckland Council comments on the proposed development The Ōrākei Local Board does not support the proposal by Ryman Healthcare Limited to construct a retirement village in Kohimarama in its current form and requests that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decline the application. 1. The Board does not believe this development is any different from a number of other larger developments in our area that have proceeded in some form under the Resource Management Act process. While the proposal was deemed eligible for the EPA to consider, we do not believe this development is a short-term measure to help stimulate the economy during the crisis caused by COVID-19. 2. We note that the EPA has, to date, granted approval to projects that are clearly large- scale public projects such as a fast-tracked water reservoir and a cycleway to stimulate the economy and benefit the wider community. This proposal is different. It is a private concentrated residential and healthcare development that delivers a unique commercial model of occupancy to a small number of retirees able to afford it. 3. The proposal's bulk, scale and the range of other more than minor effects tabled below - cumulatively will deliver negative regional effects to the Board's documented plan for the Pourewa Valley, Kepa Bush and Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive Shared Path in this area. One of the key links to the shared path creating regional amenity and local amenity is located in the John Rymer Place area beside this development. These projects are recreational and environmentally focused by nature rather than part of any rapid transport corridor system upgrade. 4. The anticipated height for the MHU zone of this site is 11 m. The proposed average heights of Ryman Healthcare Limited’s proposal are 6 storied, 22 m and therefore is significantly contrary to the policy outcomes of this zone. The Board strongly recommends that at least 2 stories be removed from the design of all the proposed buildings to achieve a bulk and scale that is more appropriate to this location's steep, valley-receiving environment. 5. The AUP zoning for the wider area provides for the commercial centre at Eastridge with associated 16m H6 THAB zoning, fanning out with H5 MHU along the ridgeline and H4 MHS on the flanks and valleys. The Ryman Healthcare Limited proposal significantly upsets this planned uplift of density and order by inserting a local centre where none is intended to exist. 6. The proposal lacks compatibility with adjacent zones. The transition from high intensity apartment style building to one or two storey housing is too abrupt. 7. The height of buildings will create a wall of development - a wedge of high intensity - similar to the development adjacent to the Newmarket train station which is highly visible from far afield. Incidentally, the Newmarket development is a H6 THAB zone with 21.5m Height Variation Control. In addition to John Rymer Place and Whytehead Cres, the subject site is very visible from the Gowing Drive area in the Meadowbank which has not been considered in the Ryman Healthcare Limited’s application. The development wall will be a scar on the overall landscape visible by a much wider community. 8. Auckland Council has already identified the key problematic issue, i.e. the excess height. To quote Auckland Council landscape architect, Ainsley Verstraeten: "It is my opinion that residents of John Rymer Place will view the development as visually bulky, dominant and intrusive due to the height of the proposed buildings and visually heavy roof forms. The sloping nature of the site exacerbates these effects on residents living and experiencing their street at a lower elevation." "Residents identified within properties along Whytehead Crescent also have the potential for the development to visually dominate their elevated outlook over the site and take up a greater amount of visible skyline than a development of a complying height would. It is my opinion that this is likely to adversely affect their visual amenity to between a low and moderate degree." "It is however the combined bulk, massing and height on a prominent elevated site, that will result in low - moderate (minor and more than minor) adverse effects on localised landscape and visual amenity values for certain people, above what is anticipated within this zone." 9. The surrounding streetscape and carriageways along Kohimarama Road and the intersection with John Rymer Place are intensively used and regularly congested. Kohimarama Road in this vicinity is narrow. It is also already impacted by movements related to two schools adjacent to the development and heavy traffic volumes and container trucks travelling to and from the Port. Because the dominant commercial activity from the proposal will be healthcare, not independent living, the proposal will trigger higher numbers of traffic movements to and from the site from visitors and staff rotations not only conflicting with school use and generating greater safety issues, but on a 24/7 basis. 10. The bulk and scale of what is proposed will have very significant adverse visual effects on the green valley-like receiving environment that is a gateway area to Pourewa Valley and Kepa Bush. It is also likely the evening light spill effects from the scale of this development will negatively impact residents and the surrounding ecosystem. Kepa Bush is regarded as a critical bastion for biodiversity and birdlife and must be preserved in as natural a state as possible. 11. We are also concerned that the proposals seeks to somehow ‘re-locate’ an existing overland stream flow on the site closer to the site’s Kohimarama Road boundary. By proposing this to enable the development, the applicant will impose a setback restriction on neighbouring sites as to how they may wish to use or develop their properties in the future. This is an inequitable effect. The applicant needs to be able to find a development solution that deals with the existing overflow path without affecting neighbouring property rights. 12. The Board suggests that in the future for any refined application made by Ryman Healthcare Limited, presuming the EPA declines this matter as we suggest, that Ryman Healthcare Limited is required to work with Auckland Transport (AT) to improve traffic flow and to reduce road risk when configuring the pedestrian/road traffic interface at both Kohimarama Road and John Rymer Place. The Board considers there is an opportunity to provide an extended double/triple bus indent on Kohimarama Road to improve traffic flow and safe bus patronage but suggests AT road engineers may have additional design improvements. Asset Owner / Specialist Response

From: Sarishka Gandi, Traffic Engineer, Auckland Council

Date: 26 February 2021

Overall Summary:

Outline your overall view of the proposal. Your assessment should generally be as per the assessment of a resource consent under the RMA, and the AUP(OP) is a central consideration.

Try to keep this response to two pages maximum.

Attach any recommended conditions of consent.

In preparation of my peer review report I have taken the following documents into consideration: • AEE and associated plans. • Auckland Transport (AT) memo dated 21 May 2020 (received in relation to resource consent application BUN60353138). • Traffic Assessment report by Commute Transportation dated 12 February 2021. • Transportation Peer Review, Summary Report, by Flow, dated February 2021. • Technical Memorandum, by Paul Schischka (AT road safety specialist)-PTM consultants, dated 22 February 2021. • Auckland Transport Operation Centre memo, dated 18 February 2021.

1.1 Parking

a) Parking Numbers

The proposed activity is located in the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone. The minimum parking for retirement village is 0.7 per unit plus 0.2 visitor space per unit plus 0.3 per bed for rest home beds within a retirement village. There is no maximum. The proposal provides 123 independent apartments, 75 assisted living suites and 98 care beds. In total it is required to provide 163 spaces. It is proposed to provide 190 basement parking spaces and 2 at-grade parking spaces. (pick-up/drop-off area) I have reviewed the proposed number of parking spaces and concur that they comply with the requirements as per Table E27.6.2.4 of AUP (OP) and there will not be any overspill onto the on-street parking spaces. b) Parking Layout

I have reviewed the proposed parking space dimensions, manoeuvring dimensions and associated gradients and concur that they comply with the requirements of the AUP (OP). A pick-up and drop-off area is also proposed as a part of the proposal. Through the s92 query we requested the applicant to provide suitable signage and marking to clearly indicate the area for potential users. The applicant agreed to this request and we recommend a condition of consent in this respect. Also, the tracking curves provided demonstrate that vehicles could safely manoeuvre in and out of the pick-up and drop-off area.

1.2 Traffic Generation

The applicant stated that the proposed 198 units of the integrated residential development is less than standard T2 of Table E27.6.1.1. Thus, there is no requirement to consider the traffic generating impacts of the proposal. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the potential trip generation to understand its effect and ensure an appropriate access strategy is provided. The applicant stated that the proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 41 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 50 trips during the PM peak hour and 68 trips in the interpeak hour. The peak hour trip rates have been obtained from two operational Ryman retirement villages and were preferred over the RR453 NZTA standard. The applicant stated that the peak hour rates from operational Ryman facilities within Auckland are considered more relevant than the RR 453 standard. I agree with the applicant. I have reviewed the traffic generation estimate and concur that it has been applied and calculated correctly. The traffic generated also doesn’t cause any adverse effects on the surrounding road network as indicated by the SIDRA analysis carried out (which showed favourable Level of Service after the commencement of the development). Therefore, the trip generation analysis provided by the applicant is acceptable.

1.3 Bicycle Parking

In accordance with standard T83 of Table E27.6.2.5 of AUP (OP), the proposed development is required to provide 8 visitor bicycle space and 5 secure bicycle spaces. The proposed site plan shows a total of 15 bicycle parking spaces provided on the site, in the basement area of B01. I have reviewed the number of bicycle spaces and concur that they comply with the requirements of Table E27.6.2.5.

1.4 Disabled Parking

The proposed parking layout plan shows 8 disabled parking space on the site. I have reviewed the parking space dimensions, number of disabled spaces and location of disabled spaces and concur that they comply with NZS4121:2001.

1.5 Loading Space

In accordance with Table E27.6.2.7 of AUP (OP), ‘for all other activities’ the proposed development is required to provide 2 loading spaces, as the development is above 50,000 m2. It is proposed to provide one loading space. This is an infringement. The applicant did not provide an assessment on the infringement. Therefore, the loading space infringement cannot be supported. However, I have reviewed the size of the proposed loading space, including vertical clearance requirements and concur that it complies with Table E27.6.3.2.1 of AUP (OP). I also reviewed the tracking and consider it acceptable.

1.6 Vehicle crossing and Access widths It is proposed to provide two accesses to serve the proposal one on John Rymer Place and another on Kohimarama Road. Both serve more than 10 or more parking spaces. The proposed crossing on John Rymer Place will be 6.0 m and the crossing on Kohimarama Road is also proposed to be 6.0 m wide. I have reviewed the proposed crossing width and concur that it complies with standard T151 of Table E27.6.4.3.2 AUP (OP). In accordance with standard T151 of Table E27.6.4.3.2 AUP (OP), any vehicle access serving 10 or more car parking spaces on the site shall have a minimum formed access width of 5.5 metres. The formed access width is proposed to be 6 m connected the crossings on John Rymer Place and Kohimarama Road. Therefore, this complies with the requirement.

1.7 Vehicle Access Gradients

I have reviewed the vehicle access gradients and concur that they comply with the requirements of the AUP (OP). The proposed driveway long sections show a 1in20 access platform over 4m length at the road boundary. This complies with the requirements as per E27.6.4.4(3) of AUP (OP). I have reviewed the rest of the gradients along the entire length of the vehicle access and ramps connecting to the basement car parks and concur that they comply with the requirements of the AUP (OP).

1.8 Number of Vehicle Crossing and Separation Distance

I have reviewed the proposed number of vehicle crossings along the site frontage and concur that they comply with standard T146 of Table E27.6.4.2.1 of AUP (OP). I have reviewed the separation distance between proposed vehicle crossings and neighbouring vehicle crossings and concur that it complies with standard T146 of Table E27.6.4.2.1 of AUP (OP). I noted the two vehicle crossings within the subject site have a separation distance of approximately 40 m, therefore this complies with the 6m requirement as per Table E27.6.4.2.1 of AUP (OP).

1.9 Road Safety

An analysis of crashes in the vicinity of the site accesses was provided in Section 3.4 of the TA. The search area included the length of Kohimarama Road between Kepa Road and Whytehead Crescent, John Rymer Place and Allum Street (between Kohimarama Road and school access). The study period reported crashes between the years 2014 to 2018 inclusive of any available 2019 data. The signalised intersection at Kohimarama Road, Allum Street and John Rymer Place has a record of 8 crashes over the study period. It is to be noted that 7 of those crashes were right turning crashes. One crash involved a cyclist. On Kohimarama Road mid-block adjacent the site frontage, 6 crashes have been reported. The crashes involved rear end and lane changing crashes. Also, 2 crashes due to loss of control occurred while negotiating the slight bend around 245 Kohimarama Road. No crashes have been recorded involving vehicles using private access points along this section. However, it is to be noted that most of the current dwellings are minor dwellings with minimal number of trips. The proposed development (retirement village) might however generate more trips due to scale and size of the activity. In the vicinity of the Selwyn College frontage on Kohimarama Road a total of 10 crashes were recorded (4 at Kohimarama Road/ Selwyn Road intersection and 6 along the mid-block section). The crashes involved rear end crashes, lane changing crashes and two head on crashes. At the intersection of Kepa Road and Kohimarama Road 12 crashes were reported. These include rear end crash, sideswipe crash, loss of control and failure to stop at signals. Further, it is mentioned that 9 of the 22 crashes along this section of Kohimarama Road occurred during school drop-off and pick-up times i.e (8:15 -9:15 am and 2:30- 3:30 pm).Therefore, the applicant proposed installation of automatic bollards to restricts movements into and out of the Kohimarama Road crossing during these periods. The adequacy of this measure is discussed further, below and in section 2.10 of this memo. Overall, 36 crashes were recorded in the search area during the time period mentioned. It is to be noted that main concern is the crashes during the school drop-off and pick-up periods and right turning crashes. The applicant proposed automatic bollards to address the concern regarding the crashes during school pick-up and drop-off times. However, it is to be observed that where there is a need for a greater number of right turn movements (as at Kohimarama Road/ John Rymer Place and Allum road intersection) there has been an increased incidence of right turning crashes. The proposed development might generate a greater number of right turn trips (spread throughout the day-staff during peak hours and residents outside the peak hours). The signalisation of the intersection at John Rymer Place will ensure safe movement of right turns into John Rymer Place and then into the property. The applicant also proposed restricting right turn out from the Kohimarama Road crossing. However, due to the absence of any control measures to separate right turning (into the property) and westbound through movements on Kohimarama Road, at the Kohimarama Road crossing, the right turning movements into the property (which will be a significant increase in number when compared to existing) might be potentially risky (especially during the school peak hours) to the road users including pedestrians and cyclists. This concern was also raised in the submissions made by general public during consultation. On the basis of the above, we recommend a change to the bollard operation time from that mentioned in Auckland Council traffic report dated 22 May 2020, to include peak hour of the school activity and the peak hour of the Kohimarama Road, i.e., from 7:00 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm.

1.10 Vehicle Access Restriction

I have reviewed the proposed vehicle crossing onto Kohimarama Road and concur that it infringes E27.6.4.1.3(c) of AUP (OP). The following are to be noted in the assessment of vehicle access restriction:

• The proposal provides on-site manoeuvring such that vehicles could go into and out of the property in forward motion from the access. • Restriction is proposed on the right turning movements out of the access onto Kohimarama Road at all times. Signage to communicate this is also proposed. • There is adequate sight distance available on both sides of the crossing. Further, we recommend a condition to ensure that “the vegetation located within the site along the road frontage of Kohimarama Road (east of the proposed Kohimarama Road crossing) shall be trimmed if it grows into the zone that is 3 m from the roadside kerb. The growth of the trees shall be monitored every 6 months, for the duration of the operation of the retirement village.” This is to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles exiting left-out of the site onto Kohimarama Road. In addition to the above, in this context, it is to be noted that Selwyn College is located west/northwest of the proposed crossing. An assessment on this is carried out in section 1.11 of this report.

1.11 Selwyn College and functioning of Kohimarama Road crossing

Due to the presence of Selwyn College in close proximity to the proposed Kohimarama Road crossing, the applicant proposed restrictions on movements in and out of the Kohimarama Road crossing between the hours of 8:15-9:15 am and 2:30-3:30 pm. To enforce this the applicant proposed bollards to restrict vehicles from the proposed village and a sign advising restrictions for the vehicles from Kohimarama Road. However, as mentioned in section 1.9 of this report we consider that the bollard operation time should be between (7:00 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm), to include the peak hour of the school and the peak hour of the Kohimarama Road. Further, the applicant proposed that bollard should be located internally along the Kohimarama Road access instead of locating them at the entrance/site boundary. This is proposed to ensure that vehicles that have turned-in drive through into the site (even if they turn into the site during the school peak hours) without requiring to reverse out onto the Kohimarama Road (which is an arterial) in the peak hours. We do not agree with this. The reason is that this defeats the purpose of having the bollards to eliminate movements into and out of the Kohimarama Road crossing during school peak hours and provide safety to the pedestrians and cyclists. Placing the bollards at some distance within the access invites unwanted traffic during the school periods which is detrimental to the safety of the pedestrians and cyclists. With the bollards at site boundary, it is expected that the drivers trying to drive in would observe the bollards, from the flush median (southbound traffic) or carriageway (northbound traffic) and drive straight through to access the site through John Rymer Place crossing or use the right turn bay to turn into Southern Cross Road and follow the same route as southbound traffic. To enhance the visibility from the carriageway we recommend reflective stickers on bollards. Also, it is mentioned in AT road safety specialists report that usually drivers are inclined to turn when they spot bollards expecting the bollard to retract upon their arrival. To avoid this, we recommend signage directed towards the road reading ‘Bollards do not retract between 7:00 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm)’ at Kohimarama Road crossing. Therefore, in addition to right turn restriction from the crossing at all times, we support the crossing onto Kohimarama Road, subject to

• Restriction of access to and from Kohimarama Road crossing during the hours (7:00 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm) on school days for all the vehicles, enforced through automatic bollards placed at the entrance /site boundary of the Kohimarama Road access. • Reflective stickers on the bollards at Kohimarama Road crossing. • Signage ‘Bollards do not retract between 7:00 am to 9:30 am and 2:30 pm to 5:00 pm).

1.12 Sight Distance at John Rymer Place crossing

I have reviewed the sight distances from both sides of the vehicle crossing on John Rymer Place and concur that they comply with the requirements of the RTS6 Guidelines for Visibility at Driveways. However, the applicant stated that the on-street south of the crossing is used for parking during the school term for most part of the day and could hinder the visibility of sightlines. To mitigate this the applicant proposed No Stopping at All Times (NSAAT) markings to the south of the proposed crossing for 10 m. We consider this acceptable subject to Auckland Transport’s approval.

1.13 Lighting

The applicant has stated suitable lighting will be provided to comply with the requirements of the Unitary Plan. I recommend that suitable lighting is provided in the car parking area in compliance with section E24 of the AUP (OP).

1.14 Auckland Transportation (AT) consultation

AT has been consulted for their comments. ATs review included road and pedestrian safety effects at the Kohimarama Road vehicle crossing, road safety and operational effects at the Kohimarama Road/John Rymer signalised intersection, road and pedestrian safety effects at the John Rymer vehicle crossing and construction and earthworks traffic effects.

AT in general support the proposal and proposed conditions related to visibility and exit right turn restriction at Kohimarama Road crossing, service and delivery timings, monitoring of bollard system at Kohimarama Road crossing, visibility at John Rymer Place and management of construction Traffic.

I noted the assessment by ATs road safety specialist on the bollards at Kohimarama Road crossing. The analysis is inconclusive on best outcome regarding the placement of bollards (at some distance within the access or at the entry) in preventing crashes due to right turns into the site at Kohimarama Road crossing during school peak hours but largely agrees with the location of the bollards proposed by the applicant. Also, in paragraph 25 of the assessment, it is mentioned that ‘it is normal practice to require that any access gate is located within the site far enough back that the largest vehicle which regularly enters the site can be stopped between the gate and boundary’. In this case I consider that the assessment is not relevant as the intention is to completely eliminate the turns during school peak hours and not allow access to and from the site as is generally the case in other developments. Therefore, as mentioned earlier in this memo I consider that having a gate at the entrance/site boundary would be more effective in eliminating the movements from the Kohimarama Road crossing, to ensure pedestrian/cyclist safety during peak hours of the school. Also, in this context, concerns raised by Paul Schischka (ATs road safety specialist) in paragraphs 15, 30 and 32 of his assessment, on the location of the bollards (at some distance within the access) as proposed by the applicant, are to be noted.

I also noted the assessment by ATOC and AT road safety specialist on the safety on right turns from Kohimarama Road onto John Rymer Place through a filter turn. I agree on the final conclusion by ATOC that the current phasing could accommodate the right turn traffic due to retirement village. It is to be noted that ATOC doesn’t recommend changes to phasing if no physical changes to the layout of the intersection are made.

1.15 Construction Traffic Management It is standard practice that the applicant is to submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) so that any potential adverse effects of demolition/construction traffic will be mitigated. The CTMP is to be approved by Auckland Council and this requirement should be included in the conditions of consent. In this case the CTMP will likely be developed by contractor as they will have the best information regards the staging of the development.

The CTMP needs to address how deliveries would be made to the site, location of loading areas, how heavy or over dimension vehicles would be brought to and removed from the site, etc.

The CTMP should include details (among other general issues listed in the standard CTMP list) of hours of operation, location of parking for workers or sub-contractors who need to have their vehicles on or close to the site, wheel washing, maintenance of pedestrian access, adequate signage and ensuring that access to neighbouring properties is not compromised.

Further, as mentioned earlier (in section 2.13), in order to prevent trucks from blocking eastbound vehicles while queuing at the intersection, temporary “no stopping at all times” (NSAAT) markings were recommended by AT for the duration of construction to minimize delays to other road users.

It is to be noted that the applicant mentioned that the parking for the construction traffic will be completely accommodated within the site and there will not be any overspill onto on- street parking spaces.

2.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I do not support the proposal due to the following reason(s): a) The right turning movements into the property are potentially dangerous to road users and the applicant has not proposed adequate measures to address the adverse effects. b) The applicant is proposing only one loading space, whereas it is required to provide two loading spaces as per AUP (OP).

3.0 SHOULD THE CONSENT BE GRANTED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF CONSENT ARE RECOMMENDED c) Prior to the operation of the activity all access, parking and manoeuvring areas shall be formed, sealed with an all-weather surface and drained in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the Council. d) Prior to the occupation of operation of the activity, the 190 car parking spaces (including 8 disabled parking spaces) shall be marked and identified through signage to the satisfaction of the Council. e) Prior to construction of any bicycle parking area/s, confirmation shall be provided to the Council that the layout, quantity(15), design and security of bicycle parking facilities located either in public or private areas, meet the minimum requirements of the Auckland Transport Code of Practice 2013, Part 13.6 for Cycle Parking. f) Prior to the operation of the activity, the consent holder shall install appropriate signage and line marking at the loading space to deter others from parking in the area. g) Prior to the operation of the activity, the consent holder shall provide suitable lighting in compliance with Section E24 of the AUP (OP). h) Prior to the operation of the activity, the consent holder shall install directional signage at the Kohimarama Road exit restricting right hand turns onto Kohimarama Road. This shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Council. i) The consent holder shall ensure that during the operation of the activity the vegetation located within the site along the road frontage of Kohimarama Road (east of the proposed Kohimarama Road crossing) shall be trimmed if it grows into the zone that is 3 m from the roadside kerb. The growth of the trees shall be monitored every 6 months, for the duration of the operation of the retirement village. j) Prior to the occupation of residential units, the consent holder shall install the bollards detailed in section 2.9 of this report/section 5.1 of the TA and directional signage at the entrance of the Kohimarama Road access in order to ensure that vehicle movements are restricted into and out of Kohimarama Road Access between hours mentioned by the applicant (8:15-9:15 am and 2:30-3:30 pm). This shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Council. k) Prior to the commencement of construction or demolition works, the consent holder shall submit a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to Auckland Council for approval. The CTMP shall include the following aspects of the construction process:

• Provide hours of work, staging of the development and construction period. • Provide parking management plan for visitors and construction traffic. Parking must be contained within the site. • Provide location of loading / working areas. • Construction loading or unloading from the street is to be permitted only with the approval of Auckland Transport. • Truck (Any truck more than 8 m in length) operation time including picking up and dropping off machinery shall be limited to outside the peak hours, between 9am and 3pm on Monday to Friday. • The CTMP is to prohibit truck and trailer deliveries to or from the site from 7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm on weekdays. • Provide cleaning facilities within the site to thoroughly clean all vehicles prior to exit to prevent mud or other excavated material from being dropped on the road. In the event that material is dropped on the road resources should be on hand to clean-up as soon as possible. • The CTMP needs to address the transportation and parking of oversize vehicles such as cranes. • Provide traffic management plans in compliance with the latest edition of the NZTA “Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management” (COPTTM) document. • Provide pedestrian management plan including temporary pedestrian routes which must be easily traversable, well-marked and safely separated from moving vehicles. • The site access point must be clearly signposted and ensuring that access to neighbouring properties is not compromised.

4.0 ADVICE NOTES a) This assessment does not include any civil works, common access way and structural assessment. b) A vehicle crossing application shall be approved by Auckland Transport prior to construction of new vehicle access to the site or altering/widening of the existing vehicle crossing. c) Any permanent traffic and parking changes within the road reserve (including the implementation of broken yellow lines, changes to the existing broken yellow lines etc.) as a result of the development will require Traffic Control Committee (TCC) resolutions. The resolutions, prepared by a qualified traffic engineer, will need to be passed so that the changes to the road reserve can be legally implemented and enforced. The resolution process may require public consultation to be undertaken in accordance with Auckland Transport’s standard procedures. It is the responsibility of the consent holder to prepare and submit a permanent Traffic and Parking Changes report to AT TCC for review and approval. d) That a Corridor Access Request (CAR) application is required from Auckland Transport for any works within the road reserve that affects the normal operation of the road, footpath or berm. e) That any works done on land affected by an Auckland Transport Designation need written consent from AT before the works can begin. f) AT will manage the road network according to its own policies and strategic objectives. The existing parking may become further restricted in the future or reallocated for alternative uses such as bus stops, pedestrian amenity, cycling facilities etc. g) Prior to the works, the applicant should seek approval for the Traffic/Pedestrian Management Plans from Auckland Transport.

Specialist Response

From: Sheerin Samsudeen, Principal Urban Design, Auckland Council

Date: 04.03.2021

Overall Summary:

The assessment below is a summary of findings from the two previous reports, urban design specialist report (21.07.2020) and urban design addendum (05.11.2020), prepared as part of the resource consent application. The addendum was prepared following notification and submissions and identified further information which was included in the Pre-hearing Section 92 request (24.11.2020) sent to the applicant. I have reviewed the letter to Auckland Council (dated 12 February 2021) in relation to the fast-track application and associated documents including the response to the above-mentioned Section 92 request.

The proposal infringes bulk related standards of height, height in relation to boundary (HiRTB), and yards. While the proposed Building B01 rises 6 levels above the basement, buildings BO2 to BO6 rise up to 6 levels above a podium structure. Due to the steeply sloping topography of the site towards the south, the buildings scale and form have the potential to create a visually dominant presence to the immediate adjoining neighbours along John Rymer Place with a greater bulk and intensity than normally anticipated within the MHU zone. In general, it is my opinion that the development in general will be appropriate for the site and its context mainly for the following reasons:

. The site layout and the design approach of six buildings is an appropriate response to balance the functional requirements of a care village, the topographical constraints of the site, and the planned character of the neighbourhood. . The design approach to concentrate the building mass, in particular the higher height, to the north and west along the Selwyn College boundary and to the site’s centre is an appropriate response, with the exception of building B06. . It is my view that from the surrounding public realm, the landform, the building form, gaps between buildings, and generous boundary setbacks together with the intervening landscape response will create an outcome that is comparable to the built form envisaged within the MHU zone. . The views and visual simulations included in the application show highly modulated roof forms, and/or upper levels of proposed buildings which are progressively stepped above the existing residential environs, reflecting the underlying topography. The proposed design includes a number of architectural design gestures, and a varied palette of materials and colours to provide a high level of building and roof articulation, all of which will assist in mitigating the perceptions of scale. . The site’s shape, topography and the functionality of the retirement village limits the front door presence to both Kohimarama Road and John Rymer Place. The retention of the existing Oak tree and Pohutukawa trees will retain the existing character along the Kohimarama Road frontage which is positive. The proposed vehicle access and the sky bridge pedestrian entrance combined with the proposed building design will provide adequate activation and opportunities for passive surveillance, which will contribute to the existing street environs. Along John Rymer Place, the main entrance is clearly marked by the feature brick wall / signage. . The proposal includes the retention of existing vegetation along the John Rymer Place interface and a new planting mix in front of podium / blank walls / lower levels of podium buildings facing this interface. Until such time as the new planting is established to a level where they can screen the blank walls and lower levels, the proposed bulk and the higher height can have a visually imposing presence to neighbours along this interface, when viewed in the expanse of the proposed buildings. . Following further information and clarifications received with the fast-track application, I am of the opinion that adjoining neighbours along the north / north-east off Kohimarama Road and John Rymer Place will not experience any negative urban amenity impacts due to the proposed bulk. I consider the built form and interface outcomes for these neighbours as acceptable in terms of the planned character for the site. This is primarily due to the generous setback, roof and façade articulation, and the intervening landscape. However, details relating to landscape elements of fencing, planting, retaining walls etc. along these interfaces are not provided and require further review. . As per my previous reports, the one outstanding concern relates to the bulk, form and appearance of Building B06 in relation to the south / south-east neighbours, and raised in submissions by residents at 45A, 29, 27 and 19 John Rymer Place. While I acknowledge the proposal’s generous setback distance from the shared boundary (up to 25+m), the intervening existing vegetation and the proposed step in building B06 at the southern end; given the steep slope, I consider that these residential neighbours will experience a more dominant urban form looking up the slope. This is because, the building is a large rectilinear form with longer side elevations facing these neighbours and results in the greatest height infringement on the site between 6.9m and 10.4m. The views from these neighbours do not reflect the stepped character of the building forms achieved in other views and the building scale reads as 3-4 storeys in height directly above the existing vegetated buffer, as discussed in my urban design addendum (paragraphs 12 to 16). . The recommendation is to reconsider the bulk associated with upper levels and possibly setback the 4th and 5th floors to reduce the perceived scale of this building in relation to these neighbours.

Image 1: View of B06 from 35 John Rymer Place (Source: Landscape Plans, SK116-3D PERSPECTIVE VIEW G-RV1)

Image 2: Cross section across B06 (Source: Landscape Plans, SK110-CROSS SECTION A-RV1)

. In addition, there is a lack of clarity regarding the existing vegetation and the proposed planting strategy along the southern and south-eastern interfaces. In relation to the proposed landscape and vegetation strategy, I rely on Ms Verstraeten’s landscape and visual effects assessment and recommendations.

From an urban design perspective, I consider the proposed Comprehensive Care Retirement Village to be an appropriate outcome for the site and is generally consistent with the Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) provisions in the AUP (OP). Outstanding concerns remain in relation to building B06 and the bulk related impacts to the adjoining neighbours along the south-eastern interface and it is recommended that consideration is given to reducing the overall height and bulk to reduce the potential visual dominance effects.

Should the proposed development be granted consent, I have provided a list of recommended conditions of consent for your consideration below.

Recommended Conditions of Consent

1: Detailed Design Plans

Prior to commencement of any works, a finalised set of architectural detail drawings and materials specifications shall be submitted to Council for written certification by Council’s Team Leader Monitoring (Central). The information shall including the following:

. details of the building’s façade treatment / architectural features; . material schedule and specification; . signage and wayfinding details; and . retaining wall details.

The finalised set of drawings shall ensure that the building’s proposed design intent and architectural treatment is consistent with the plans and information referenced at condition 1. All works shall then be carried out with the details certified by council, and thereafter retained and maintained, to the satisfaction of Council’s Team Leader Monitoring (Central).

Advice note: As part of the condition monitoring process, Council’s monitoring inspectors will liaise with members of the Council’s urban design team to ensure that the submitted details are consistent with the approved plans and information.

Attachments:

1. Urban Design Specialist Report, 21.07.2020 2. Urban Design Report Addendum, 05.11.2020

URBAN DESIGN REPORT: ADDENDUM

To: Sandy Hsiao – Senior Planner & Russell Butchers – Premium Project Lead Central Resource Consenting Unit, Resource Consents Department From: Sheerin Samsudeen, Principal Urban Design Advisor Design Review Unit, Auckland Design Office Date: 05.11.2020 Applicant: Ryman Healthcare Limited Application: BUN60353138 223 Kohimarama Road and 9 John Rymer Place Proposal: Comprehensive care retirement village in Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone Activity Status: Discretionary

Dear Sandy & Russell,

INTRODUCTION

1. Ryman Healthcare Limited (the Applicant), seeks resource consent to establish a comprehensive care retirement village at the subject site with an area of 3.12 ha. The proposal includes 98 care rooms, 75 assisted living suites and associated residents’ amenities in building B01; 123 independent living apartments (12 one-bedroom apartments; 69 two-bedroom apartments; and 42 three-bedroom) in buildings B02 to B06; a vertical circulation core in building B07; 192 car parks and 15 bicycle parks in podium and basement locations; a private road that connects John Rymer Place and Kohimarama Road; and stream works, earthworks and associated retaining walls and fencing over 6.0m in height.

2. I have been involved with the proposal since the pre-application stage and had prepared a resource consent specialist report on the urban design aspects of the application dated

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 1 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

21.07.2020. In response to the notification decision and the submissions, I provide this addendum to the urban design specialist report.

3. I have visited the site and the surrounding area on a number of occasions, including a site walkabout with the applicant’s team on 25.06.2019. The most recent site visit was undertaken on

xx November 2020 but I have not visited the submitters’ properties. Commented [SS1]: Hoping to do a site visit 6/11 as it has been a while and will update. 4. I have reviewed the notification report and am familiar with the application material, further information provided in response to Section 92 (S92) requests, and specialist / expert memoranda including the landscape specialist report by the Council Landscape Architect Ainsley Verstraeten dated 05.11.2020.

5. I have reviewed the notification decision and the valid submissions received. This addendum addresses the relevant urban design matters raised in the submissions. A submissions report and submission summary were provided by the Council planner (20.10.2020) and I have included below the urban design and landscape related matters:

5.1 The impact of the higher height on sunlight and daylight access;

5.2 Light spill /glare at night;

5.3 Visual amenity – visual dominance and changes to outlook for residents;

5.4 The height in relation to boundary (HiRTB) to 3A John Rymer Place – concern regarding Building B1 and the stairwell that looks to be one whole story above the rest of the building and is only 6.9 meters from the shared boundary; and

5.5 Not in-keeping with the suburb’s 'layout and design'.

6. Given the height and bulk of the proposed buildings, I consider there will be an inevitable overlap between my assessment and the landscape and visual effects assessment provided by Ms. Verstraeten. I note that my assessment of the proposal is specific to the immediate urban design context and the amenity effects on the street /public realm and adjoining neighbours.

URBAN DESIGN ASSESSMENT

7. Having considered the urban design matters raised by the submitters, I have not changed the principal conclusions and recommendations reached in my urban design report1.

8. In the original assessment, I had identified a number of adjoining neighbours as being affected by the proposal’s bulk to varying degrees of visual dominance, depending on the visibility of the built

1 Urban Design Specialist Report (21.07.2020), Section 5.0

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 2 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

form, intervening setback, and the existing and proposed landscape. These consisted of residents at 7, 19, 27, 27A, 29, 35, 35A, 1/37, 2/37, 45A John Rymer Place. Through submissions, a number of other adjoining and surrounding residents have raised specific urban design matters. I have included a reference map (Image 1) below identifying the submitters that raise urban design matters that are within the scope of my assessment.

Image 1: submitters

Submitters adjoining the subject site that raise urban design related matters Submitters adjoining the subject site but raise no urban design related matters Submitters surrounding the subject site that raise urban design related matters

9. The urban design matters raised in the submissions largely relate to effects associated with the higher height sought by the proposal. Where there is overlap with the urban design and residential amenity effects that I have assessed in my urban design report2, I have included the key conclusions along with my reasons for those conclusions. I have provided further assessment for the matters that were not covered in my previous report. In addition, I request further

2 Urban Design Specialist Report (21.07.2020), Section 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 3 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

information in this report to assist with assessing any potential and perceived effects of the new issues raised.

10. Overall I consider the size, shape and topography of the site to lend itself positively for an integrated residential development such as the proposal. From an urban design perspective, the design approach to concentrate the building mass, in particular the higher height, to the north and west along the ridge /Selwyn College boundary and to the site’s centre is a successful response. The graduating heights of the buildings across the site from about 6-levels (albeit higher than permitted) along the ridge, to about 3-levels closer to existing residential edges, is an appropriate response. In addition, the proposal generally complies with the height in relation to boundary (HiRTB) standard along the shared boundaries to adjoining residences.

11. As noted in my previous assessment under ‘Building Height & Bulk’3, I generally agree with various assessments provided with the application and consider the building height infringements to be appropriate for the site and its context mainly for the following reasons:

11.1 The views from surrounding streets show highly modulated roof forms, and/or upper levels of proposed buildings are progressively stepped above the existing residential environs, which while noticeable, do not present a dominant bulk from the public realm;

11.2 I consider the effects to be similar as viewed from the wider residential neighbourhood beyond Kohimarama Road and John Rymer Place;

11.3 I consider the greatest impact of the higher height is along the interface with Selwyn College, where the height infringements are closest to the boundary. However, the landform, the building form, the building and roof articulation, gaps between buildings, and boundary setbacks together with the intervening landscape response along this interface will create an outcome that is comparable to the built form envisaged within the MHU zone. I also understand that Selwyn College has given written approval for the proposed development.

11.4 I generally agree with the assessment provided by Mr Bird4 and Ms Skidmore5 regarding the adjacent residences to the north and north-east that have a direct interface with the site and are accessed off Kohimarama Road6 and John Rymer Place7.

3 Urban Design Specialist Report (21.07.2020), Section 4.3 4 Urban Design Review, Clinton Bird Urban Design Limited (14 February 2020), Section 7 5 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, R.A. Skidmore Urban Design Limited (February 2020), paragraph 6.11 to 6.19 and 6.33 to 6.45 6 245, 247A, 249A Kohimarama Road 7 3A & 5 John Rymer Place

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 4 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

11.5 In relation to retaining walls, Ms Verstraten has confirmed in her assessment8 that she considers the proposed development to have appropriately responded to the site’s topography, which I accept.

11.6 In relation to the proposed planting, Ms Verstraeten is of the view that “protecting the native species would be appropriate with a condition of consent requiring a landscape management / maintenance plan to be provided that details the weed replacement programme”, which I accept.

12. Notwithstanding the support in principle highlighted above, I continue to have the same view9 that building B06, at 6 levels above the existing ground level, will present a visually bulky and dominant outlook to the immediate adjoining neighbours to the south and south-east (27, 29, 35, 35A, 1/37, 2/37, 45A John Rymer Place), due to the steep slope, higher height, roof form and when viewed in the expanse of the proposed buildings (B01 to B05) that are higher than anticipated heights. I consider this visually bulky and dominant outlook will be further exacerbated by a lack of vegetation in the short-term, until such time as the proposed landscape is well established together with the existing vegetation on site.

13. I also make the following comments in relation to the matters raised by submitters. .

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

14. 45A John Rymer Place

14.1 The submitter has raised concerns in relation to the proposed height and its negative impact on views /outlook, visual dominance, and shading.

14.2 The main outlook for this neighbour is towards the north and north-west. The proposed building B06 will be viewed in the expanse of the proposed buildings B05 and B03 up the slope behind10. While the buildings along this interface comply with HiRTB standards, the visible sections of the higher height above the existing vegetation will, in my opinion, present an imposing outlook and will potentially limit the sky views from the submitter’s private outdoor space.

14.3 I consider this neighbour to be significantly impacted along with 35 and 37 John Rymer Place, as discussed in paragraph 12 above. To address the dominance impact on views

8 Landscape Architecture Specialist Report (05.11.2020), paragraph x to x. 9 Urban Design Specialist Report (21.07.2020), Section 4.6 10 Beca Drawing 044-ASM-S01-A0-006, Rev.A, dated 08.05.2020

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 5 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

and outlook from these residential properties, I recommend that the building height and bulk of B06 be reconsidered to reduce the perceived scale of this building.

Further information (interface details) Commented [SS2]: Section does not show the full height proposed 14.4 I consider that additional information showing the specific relationship of the proposal to this property along the shared boundary will assist with determining the appropriate height and bulk of B06.

15. 29 John Rymer Place

15.1 The submitter has raised concerns relating to the proposed height and scale, and the associated visual dominance, light and outlook, shading, and blocked sky view impacts.

15.2 The main outlook of this neighbour will be towards the upper south eastern corner of building B05 with buildings B03 and the eastern end of B01 in the background. The location of this residence is such that this neighbour will benefit from the open aspect between buildings B05 and B06.

15.3 The bulk and form in relation to building B06 and podium walls to the south /south-east are at such a distance (40m plus) that I consider the overall bulk, building and roof form will not have an overly dominant presence in relation to this neighbour. I also consider that the proposed variation in the roof form, building articulation and architectural treatment will present an interesting overall form and composition. However, the setback and the intervening landscape /planting areas require appropriate resolution to avoid blank walls and to soften the scale of the overall bulk of B06.

15.4 Notwithstanding the above, I consider the higher height of buildings B05 and B06 to negatively affect the sky views in comparison to a complying bulk. The recommendation in paragraph 13.3 will assist to improve the visual amenity available to this neighbour.

Further information (interface details) Commented [SS3]: Not provided 15.5 I consider that additional information showing the specific relationship of the proposal to this property along the shared boundary will assist with determining the appropriate height and bulk of B06.

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 6 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

16. 27 John Rymer Place Commented [SS4]: Check landscape comments

16.1 The submitter has raised general concerns relating to the proposed scale and density of the proposal, however the submission does not include any details associated with these comments.

16.2 The main outlook of this neighbour is to the north-west towards building B05 and to the north towards distant views of B03 and B01. In terms of the scale of the proposal I consider the effects on this neighbour to be comparable to 29 John Rymer Place in terms of the bulk, light and outlook. However, unlike 29 John Rymer Place, the impact of building B06 on sky views is not considerable due to its south western relationship to this neighbour.

16.3 I consider that the proposed form, massing and architectural response adequately address the scale of the visible extent of the proposal. However, the setback and the intervening areas require appropriate resolution to adequately resolve the changes in ground levels, avoid blank walls, and soften the scale of the proposed bulk. This includes resolution of the podium walls, retaining walls, and fencing, and a landscape /planting and maintenance plan.

Image 2a: View from 35 John Rymer Place (Source: RC Drawing, 044-ASM-S01-.A0-006, Rev.A, 08.05.2020)

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 7 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

Image 2b: View from 27 John Rymer Place (Source: RC Drawing, 044-ASM-S01-.A0-006, Rev.A, 08.05.2020)

17. 19A John Rymer Place

17.1 The submitter has raised a number of concerns relating to levels and relationship to the southern boundary; the access road; visual character; overlooking and loss of privacy effects; relationship to B03 (north), B05 (west) & B01 (far north); visual bulk and dominance due to proximity to the southern boundary and exacerbated by topography; and the impact of the proposed planting on solar access.

17.2 The main outlook of this neighbour will be towards the north to the eastern end of building B01 and towards the west to building B03. While the change will be significant, buildings B01 and B03 are setback 20.0m or greater from this neighbour’s boundary. With the intervening planting the proposal is expected to read generally as three levels. In my opinion, the visible scale and the setback distance of the proposal are appropriate giving consideration to the zone outcomes. In addition, I consider that the proposed variation in the roof form, building articulation and architectural treatment will present an interesting overall form and composition.

17.3 Given the topographical constraints on site and the scale of the overall proposal, the the setback and the intervening areas require appropriate resolution to adequately resolve the changes in ground levels, avoid blank walls, and soften the scale of the proposed bulk. This includes resolution of the podium walls, retaining walls, and fencing, and a landscape /planting and maintenance plan.

17.4 In response to the concern relating to the planting impact on solar access to this neighbour, it will be appropriate for the applicant to work with this neighbour to ensure

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 8 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

ground levels, retaining walls, fencing and the planting strategy along the interface are adequately resolved at this stage of the consenting process.

Further information (interface details) Commented [SS5]: Not provided 17.5 To assist with clearly understanding the relationship of the proposal to 19A John Rymer Place, cross sections to building B03, taken at 90 degrees to this boundary, would be useful. This should include HiRTB requirements, ground levels, retaining walls, fencing, planting and the building profile on both sides of the shared boundary.

18. 5 John Rymer Place

18.1 The key concern raised by this submitter relates to the higher height of the proposal.

18.2 I acknowledges that the proposal includes higher buildings that infringe the 11m permitted height standard to varying degrees up to 21.4m. However, I consider that the proposal will read as predominantly three storeys in the vicinity of this neighbour.

18.3 As discussed in my original report11, the intermittent stream, setback and intervening planting will provide an appropriate level of horizontal and vertical separation from the proposed building B01 in relation to this neighbour.

18.4 Overall, I consider the proposal to be generally consistent with the form, appearance and visual quality anticipated in relation to this neighbour.

19. 3A John Rymer Place Commented [SS6]: Check cross section

19.1 The submitter has raised concerns of height, HiRTB, and riparian yard / vegetation.

19.2 The appropriateness of the stream diversion, riparian yard and stream vegetation are matters for the Council stream specialist to address. But I understand that the Council is

generally supportive of the proposed stream strategy. As such my assessment focusses Commented [SS7]: To confirm on the height and bulk related impacts.

19.3 I consider the effects of higher height to be similar to 5 John Rymer Place. However, I acknowledge the concern relating to the HiRTB standard in relation to the building B01 stairwell that is only 6.9 meters from the shared boundary.

Further information (interface details)

11 Urban Design Specialist Report (21.07.2020), Section

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 9 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

19.4 To assist with clearly understanding the relationship of the proposal to 3 John Rymer Place, a cross section taken at 90 degrees to this boundary would be useful. This should include HiRTB requirements, ground levels, retaining walls, fencing, riparian planting and the building profile on both sides of the shared boundary.

20. 249A Kohimarama Road Commented [SS8]: Check cross section

20.1 The submitter has raised concerns of height, HiRTB, and riparian yard / vegetation.

20.2 As noted above, the appropriateness of the stream diversion, riparian yard and stream vegetation are matters for the Council stream specialist to address. My assessment here focusses on the height and HiRTB related impacts.

20.3 The part of building B01, in close proximity to this neighbour, is generally reading as three storeys. While there is an argument that the overall height of B01 exceeds the permitted standard, it is not uncommon to utilise the sloping topography to maximise development potential as well as to facilitate floor plate efficiency.

Further information (interface details) 20.4 The cross sections included in the package have been taken at oblique angles to the shared boundary. To assist with clearly understanding the relationship of the proposal to this concerned neighbour, cross sections taken at 90 degrees to this boundary would be useful. This should include HiRTB requirements, ground levels, retaining walls, fencing, riparian planting and the building profiles on both sides of the shared boundary.

21. 247A Kohimarama Road Commented [SS9]: Perspective not provided.

21.1 The submitter has raised concerns of height, proposed typology and the associated visual dominance effects.

21.2 The overall mass associated with the proposed typology is reflective of the functional requirements of a retirement village. The part of building B01 immediately to the south and south-east of this neighbour generally reads as three storeys. However, that part of the building to the south-west varies in height. In principle, I consider the graduating scale and stepping up of the heights away from this boundary to be an appropriate response. While there is an argument that the overall height of B01 exceeds the permitted standard,

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 10 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

it is not uncommon to utilise the sloping topography to maximise development potential as well as to facilitate floor plate efficiency.

Further information (interface details) 21.3 To address the concerns raised by the submitter and in order to clearly understand the relationship of the proposal to 247A Kohimarama Road, a perspective view looking south from the outdoor space of this neighbour would be useful.

22. 47 John Rymer Place Commented [SS10]: Check landscape

22.1 The submitter has raised concerns regarding the potential dominance of the proposed height within the landscape and has sought that the existing trees / vegetation adjoining the boundary remain.

22.2 The outlook to the northern aspect from inside and outside of this neighbour’s dwelling will be primarily of the existing vegetation, and any visible portion of B06 will be seen in the wider sky view, high up the slope. The distance, topography and the existing vegetation mean that I continue to have the view that any form and visual quality impacts would be to an acceptable degree to this neighbour.

22.3 However, I consider that an appropriate resolution is needed at this stage of the consenting process for the existing and proposed planting /weeding strategy, to ensure that the landscape outcomes generally remain consistent with the existing level of planting for this neighbour.

23. 35 John Rymer Place

23.1 I have not assessed the submission by this adjoining neighbour as it relates to noise and traffic matters only.

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 11 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

OTHER SUBMISSIONS RELATED TO URBAN DESIGN MATTERS

24. 247 Kohimarama Road

24.1 From an urban design perspective, I do not consider this submitter to be negatively impacted by the proposed height, mass and the associated visual dominance and privacy.

24.2 The proposed height and form will create a significant change to the southern and western outlook for this submitter. However, it is my opinion that viewing a large development in itself does not create visual dominance effects. While the overall height of B01 exceeds the permitted standard, it is not uncommon to utilise the sloping topography to maximise development potential as well as to facilitate floor plate efficiency for care units.

24.3 As discussed earlier, I consider the graduating scale and stepping up of the heights away from the Kohimarama Road residences to the north, to be an appropriate response. In addition, the landform, the building form, the building and roof articulation, gaps between buildings, and boundary setbacks combined with the intervening landscape response along this interface will in my opinion create an outcome that is comparable to the built form envisaged within the MHU zone.

25. 255 Kohimarama Road

25.1 From an urban design perspective, I do not consider this submitter to be negatively impacted by the height and mass of the proposal.

25.2 The overall impression of the proposal on this neighbour is similar to my assessment in paragraph 24.

25.3 I acknowledge that it would be desirable to provide access to Kepa Bush through the site and I encourage the applicant to consider this opportunity to contribute to the public benefit.

26. Residents along John Rymer Place

26.1 A number of residents along this street (15, 21, 25, 41, 43) have raised concerns relating to the higher height, HiRTB requirements, visual dominance, vegetation and shading matters. The near views and the northern / western outlook from these residences will be to the adjoining neighbours to the north and the west. The proposal will form the mid-

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 12 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

range views and will be predominantly of a three-storey form. The bulk associated with the higher height will be seen in the background at distances of 40m or greater against the wider sky view. Combined with the intervening landscape, planting and existing adjoining neighbours, I consider any effects on these residences to be acceptable within the planned context.

27. I have not assessed the shading impacts of the proposed dwellings as this forms part of the planning assessment.

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

28. Having considered the submissions, I have not changed my principal conclusions and recommendations reached in my urban design report (21.07.2020). I consider the submitters residing at 45A, 29, 27 and 19 to be impacted either by the proposed higher bulk and /or by the lack of clarity associated with the landscape strategy. I am of the view that the urban design issues raised by these submitters require further consideration in order to appropriately address the bulk and form of building B06. The existing vegetation and the proposed planting strategy along the southern and south-eastern interfaces require appropriate resolution to address the topography and to ensure positive landscape outcomes.

29. From an urban design perspective, I do not consider that the neighbours to the north along Kohimarama road and to the east along John Rymer Place, would experience negative impacts associated with the proposed height, scale and form of the development. However, further information requests and recommendations (underlined)are included above to provide adequate details along the shared interface and to ensure that an appropriate outcome both onsite and for adjoining neighbours can be achieved.

30. In relation to the proposed landscape and vegetation strategy, I rely on Ms Verstraeten’s assessment and recommendations.

Should you wish to discuss the content of this supplementary memo or discuss anything further on this application please contact me.

Kind Regards,

Sheerin Samsudeen [B.Arch, MA (Urban Design)]

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 13 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

Principal Urban Design Design Review Unit – Auckland Design Office Auckland Council

Mobile: 021 827 231 Email: [email protected]

Report Peer reviewed by: Nicole Miller Team Leader – Design Review Unit

Date: 05.11.2020

Attachment 1: Qualifications & Relevant Experience

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 14 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

Appendix 1 – Experience and Qualifications

Name: Sheerin Samsudeen Organisation: Urban Design Unit (formerly Auckland Design Office) Role: Principal Urban Design

Qualification(s) and Training: . Master of Arts (Urban Design) (1997), Oxford Brookes University, UK . Bachelor of Architecture (1996), National Institute of Technology, India Professional Membership & Certifications: . Associate Member, New Zealand Institute of Architecture . Architect (India Registered), Council of Indian Architects . IAP2 Australia’s certificate in “Engagement Essentials”, 10/ 2019 . Environment Court and Expert Witness Training by DLA Piper, 10/ 2019 . CPTED Level 1 workshop by ISMCPI (Brisbane), 11/ 2018

Work Experience: . Principal Urban Design (04/2017 – current), Design Review Unit, Auckland Council . Principal Urban Designer (11 /2014 – 03 /2017), Housing Projects Office, Auckland Council . Senior Urban Designer / Architect (07 /2008 – 08 /2014), Opus International Consultants Ltd . Urban Designer / Architect (10 /2006 – 11 /2017), Jasmax Architects, Auckland . Urban Designer (01 /2003 – 09 /2006), Barry Rae Transurban Ltd, Auckland . CAD / GIS Specialist (11/1998 – 09/2001), Pentasoft Technologies Ltd, Chennai, India

Relevant Experience: . Provision of expert urban design evidence in Council hearings. . Leading urban design advice and collaboration for residential / neighbourhood strategies, brownfield / greenfield developments, and city centre projects. Of particular relevance to this project are the following ‘Integrated residential Developments’ that I have been involved in: Summerset retirement village at 23 Cheshire St, Parnell (current) Metlifecare village at 14 Edgewater Drive, Pakuranga (consent granted 2018) Karaka Pines retirement village at 321-329 Bremner Road, Drury (consent granted 2019) . Leading urban design advice and solutions for Auckland Housing Programme (AHP) by Kainga Ora including Tamaki Regeneration area; Owairaka Masterplan area; and Design Guidelines & Housing Standardisation review for AHP. . Expert urban design advice and solutions for Qualifying Developments within Special Housing Areas (SHA), including plan variation and precinct provisions. . Urban and architecture design leadership for a range of multi-disciplinary projects for public and private sector specialising in masterplan, mixed-use, transit-oriented developments and associated urban design framework and design guidelines. . Development strategy and masterplanning input to greenfield and brownfield developments for intensification that range in scale from 5 dwellings to 2000+ lots.

Request for Expert Advice – Urban Design Page 15 BUN60353138 - 223 Kohimarama Road & 9 John Rymer Place

Asset Owner / Specialist Response

From: Tarso Luiz dos Santos Girio, Development Engineer, Watercare Date: 19 February 2021

Overall Summary:

This assessment is independent of the Auckland Council consenting process. This letter does not constitute a pre-approval from Watercare. This assessment is valid for two years from the date of this letter.

Watercare initially evaluated the proposal on 13/05/20 under BUN60353138, then considered again on September 2020. A specialist response was issued on 01/09/20 and sent to Auckland Council to be addressed to the MfE fast-track consideration board, providing relevant input confirming the water capacity and highlighting the wastewater network constraints and possible alternatives (see Appendix 1).

Watercare was contacted in December 2020 by the developer's consultants, Tektus Consultants, to discuss the wastewater design alternatives and provide comments on the proposal as a specialist/asset owner under the fast-track application process and before Engineering Plan Approval (EPA).

After further discussions and taking into consideration the non-compliant elements on the design, WSL accepts in principle the proposed extension to the Selwyn College (Selwyn College Option) subject to the conditions stated in this letter. Watercare notes that this is a one-off dispensation. We also note that all of the wastewater options discussed require the owner to pump the wastewater flows within the site then attenuate the flows via a private manhole before discharging/connecting into the public network.

Section 1 – Purpose

Watercare has reviewed the proposal in relation to Watercare's ability to provide water and wastewater services for this development. Subject to the conditions below, we confirm that Watercare is able to provide water and wastewater services to the proposed retirement village consisting of 173 care beds plus 123 independent apartments, and the proposed extension to our networks set out in the application, in particular, TEKTUS CONSULTANTS infrastructure report dated 11 February 2021 and drawings nº T19083/500/Rev A and T19083/600/Rev A.

Section 2 – General conditions

1. Watercare's confirmation in this letter is based on the application for the fast-track process as of the date of this letter, in particular, TEKTUS CONSULTANTS infrastructure report dated 11 February 2021 and drawings nº T19083/500/Rev A and T19083/600/Rev A. Any amendment to the proposals set out in those documents will require further review and approval from Watercare and is not covered by this letter.

2. The applicant must produce under the engineering plan approval stage a completed design of the proposed water supply and wastewater infrastructure, including infrastructure to vest in Auckland Council and thereafter in Watercare (public water supply and wastewater works), in accordance with the current Watercare Water and Wastewater Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision (Code of Practice) as well as 'Watercare's standards for material supply, construction and asset data capture.

3. All public water supply and wastewater works required to service this subdivision/development shall be designed and constructed by the applicant at no cost to Watercare.

4. The public water supply and wastewater works must be demonstrated to comply with 'Watercare's requirements in accordance with 'Watercare's Compliance Statement Policy, Part 1 for Land Development and Subdivision Works.

5. Engineering Plan Approval must be obtained from Auckland Council for all public water supply and wastewater works before construction begins.

6. All connections to 'Watercare's water/wastewater networks shall be made in accordance with 'Watercare's connection processes and must comply with the Code of Practice.

Section 3 – Local conditions

1. There is sufficient capacity in Watercare's water and wastewater networks at the time of this assessment to accommodate the proposed retirement village consisting of 173 care beds plus 123 independent apartments. This assessment is valid for two years from the date of this letter, and network upgrades may be required after the 2- year period.

2. The preferred option for the wastewater connection is through network extension from the wastewater network in front of Selwyn College on Kohimarama Road, subject to the conditions below: a) We can accept this solution provided that a macerator pump will be installed and maintained by the developer/owner, resulting in faster flow and no solids, mitigating the blockage and stagnation risks on the SS line with a reduced gradient (0.1%) b) The pumped flow rate must be below 5L/s c) For the pipe sections with lack of cover (350mm) and the sections less than the min. 900mm, are subject to further details review under the EPA and WO stage. d) In this case, it will be required to confirm the proposed backfill/cover for those sections (e.g. concrete or grass berm etc.) and if it is expected a driveway there.

3. An alternative is a network extension/connection to Allum Street. Both options are subject to EPA review.

4. The design and proposal must be based on actual site investigation, so a CCTV inspection is required to confirm the wastewater line status and conditions before progressing with the design.

5. Proposed drainage plans with Watercare comments on both water and wastewater can be found in Appendix 2.

TEKTUS CONSULTANTS drawing nº T19083/500/Rev A with WSL comments. See Appendix 2.

6. Reassessment for water and wastewater capacity will be required if the construction of this development has not commenced within 2 years of the date of this letter.

7. Proposed water and wastewater connections at the time of this assessment are as follows:

a) 100mm water main (proposed network extension) along Kohimarama Road 100mm water main (proposed network extension) along John Rymer Place b) 150mm wastewater line (proposed network extension) along Kohimarama Road

8. Watercare will review the proposed water and wastewater design after lodgement of the application to the Council for engineering plan approval and accompanying CS1 and CS2 if applicable.

9. All works on existing public wastewater drains and watermains shall be carried out only by a Watercare approved contractor at the applicant's expense.

10. Adequate provision shall be made during earthworks associated with construction to protect any existing public wastewater drains and watermains that traverse the site. Any damage to the drains or watermains that may occur during construction shall be the applicant's responsibility.

11. This letter does not constitute a guarantee from Watercare to provide a fire-fighting capability in accordance with Fire and Emergency New Zealand Code of Practice.

12. Water pressure could change in the future. To comply with FW2 fire risk classification, the installation of a sprinkler system and/or booster pump may be required for commercial, industrial high-rise and mixed-use buildings.

13. Watercare approval is required before any individual building /lot is connected to the public water and/or wastewater network. An application for new connection shall be submitted to Watercare in conjunction with the application to Council for building consent.

14. Watercare Infrastructure Growth Charges will apply to this development. Details of the charge are available on the website (www.watercare.co.nz).

15. Works Over approval will be required prior to the commencement of any works within 2m of Watercare's assets, subject to Watercare's review and approval. The wastewater assets that transverse the site may need to be relocated to achieve Watercare's works over requirements. The relocation of these pipes will be at the developer's cost.

Asset Owner / Specialist Response

From: Sandy Hsiao, Senior Planner, Auckland Council

Date: 16/02/2021

Overall Summary:

In terms of actual and potential effects of the proposal, the following are in my opinion the key effects in contention for this application:

• Residential amenity values:

Due to the exceedance to the height limit for the zone (approximately twice the permitted 11m height limit), adverse effects on the neighbouring residents to the south and east of the site will be greater than that reasonably anticipated from a development in the Mixed Housing Urban zone. In particular, building bulk, visual dominance (including a change to the existing landscape), and shading effects are of greatest concern. During the processing of the resource consent application, there was a difference in expert opinions in terms of the level of these effects as experienced by the neighbours. It would need to be determined whether these effects on neighbours are acceptable in the context of the Zone. In my opinion, visual, bulk and shading effects may not be acceptable to all adjacent residential properties.

• Traffic effects

Concerns were raised with regard to the vehicle access from Kohimarama Road, particularly due to the proximity of the site to neighbouring schools and the safety concerns associated with right-turn movements. I note also that many submitters for the resource consent application raised traffic concerns and requested a signalised right-turn into John Rymer Place. The applicant submitted a Traffic Assessment prepared by Commute as part of the resource consent application. The current application includes a further Transport Assessment Peer Review prepared by Flow. Flow has peer reviewed Commute, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport’s Transport Assessments and provided their own recommendations following these reviews. The Flow peer review does not state that the review is independent but this is assumed. Council’s traffic engineer maintains his views regarding the access restriction hours and bollard use (which have not been adopted by the applicant given Flow’s advice). These reports would need to be analysed in detail to determine the evidence preferred, to ensure adverse traffic safety effects are minimised and acceptable overall.

• Construction effects

Based on the input provided by noise specialists, construction noise and vibration effects can generally be managed so that it is acceptable to residents, noting that Objective E25.2(4) states, “Construction activities that cannot meet noise and vibration standards are enabled while controlling duration, frequency and timing to manage adverse effects.”

Many submitters on the resource consent application were concerned with construction activities being undertaken on Saturdays. Given the total duration of the project, submitters raised the importance of maintaining the quiet peace and enjoyment of their homes during weekends. However, Council’s noise specialist advised that given the estimated duration of works is already long, by not allowing works on Saturdays, the total construction duration will be even longer. The applicant has proposed to undertake noisy construction activities between 7.30am and 6pm, Monday to Saturday. Truck movements will be avoided during peak school hours. Details around the feasibility of restricting noisy works (i.e. earthworks and piling) closest to the residential receivers to weekdays only, or further restrictions on construction hours on Saturdays could be considered. Submitters also raised concerns regarding dust generation. I consider that these effects can be appropriately managed via consent conditions and detailed in the Construction Management Plan, including potential remediation measures for unforeseen dust effects on neighbouring properties.

Conditions of consent (should consent be granted) should provide a feasible outcome for the applicant which would also minimise disruption and nuisance effects to neighbouring residents are far as practicable.

• On-site flooding

On-site flooding effects was unresolved during resource consent processing. Further information on this matter has now been provided with the current application. Council’s development engineer held concerns regarding safety effects on future occupants of the site, due to flooding from the diverted stream. I understand that the development engineer and Healthy Waters will review this aspect and provide expert advice in this regard, in terms of whether on-site flooding effects are now avoided or minimised to an acceptable level.

• Riparian yard

The effects of diverting the existing stream on the site and changing the riparian yard setback to adjoining residential properties is discussed under section 7.9 of the AEE. While this is not an effect that is specifically mentioned in the AUP, as an overall discretionary activity, it is in my opinion this this is a relevant effect to consider. This is also a matter raised in the Council Ecologist’s memo, and by submitters (owners of the affected properties next to the stream). The AEE acknowledges that the shift in riparian yard would affect 247A Kohimarama Road, 3A and 5 John Rymer Place, but has not concluded whether the effects are acceptable. Given the implications of the riparian yard shift on these properties (in terms of consenting requirements for future developments), I do not consider the effect to be acceptable unless otherwise agreed to by the property owners.

Other effects of the proposal that would also need to be considered include geotechnical (including ground settlement), water quality and quantity, ecology, off-site flooding, and on-site amenity and safety effects. From a planning perspective, there are no obvious concerns relating to these other effects, such that they cannot be managed to an acceptable level, however this is dependent on expert input.

Adverse effects will need to be balanced against the positive effects of the proposal, which is the provision of a new aged care residential facility and efficient use of a vacant piece of land.

In terms of consideration of relevant statutory documents, with regard to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative In Part) (AUP(OP)), I consider that the chapter that requires the most attention is the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone chapter H5.

The acceptability of the proposed built form (and height infringement) will need to be assessed against the following objective and policies:

• Objective H5.2(2) Development is in keeping with the neighbourhood's planned urban built character of predominantly three-storey buildings, in a variety of forms and surrounded by open space.

• Policy H5.3(2) Require the height, bulk, form and appearance of development and the provision of sufficient setbacks and landscaped areas to achieve an urban built character of predominantly three storeys, in a variety of forms.

• Policy H5.3(4) Require the height, bulk and location of development to maintain a reasonable standard of sunlight access and privacy and to minimise visual dominance effects to adjoining sites.

Whilst the proposed buildings are clearly not three-storeys, the objective and policies suggest that developments are to be ‘in-keeping’ with the planned built character of predominantly three- storey buildings. In other words, buildings that are greater than three-storeys and that do not comply with the bulk and location standards of the zone may be acceptable, where the planned urban built character of the area is not undermined, and local residents are still able to appreciate residential amenity values in accordance with the Zone expectation.

In my opinion, given the land topography and setting of the proposed development, when it is viewed from the street or wider surrounds, it could be considered in-keeping with the planned character of the zone. However, it would be difficult to say that the scale of the development (compared to a reasonably anticipated bulk and scale on the site based on the zone standards) would maintain the expected level of residential amenity for the neighbouring residents, particularly to the south and east, due to the proposed heights.

The proposed access arrangement will need to be assessed against the following:

• Objective E27.2(4) The provision of safe and efficient parking, loading and access is commensurate with the character, scale and intensity of the zone.

• Objectives E27.2(5) Pedestrian safety and amenity along public footpaths is prioritised.

• Policy E27.3(20) Require vehicle crossings and associated access to be designed and located to provide for safe, effective and efficient movement to and from sites and minimise potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists on the adjacent road network.

Access is required to be designed and located to provide for safe, effective and efficient movement to and from sites, and potential conflicts minimised.

I do not anticipate that the proposal would be highly inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of other chapters of the AUP(OP).

I consider that the sections 4.2, 4.3, and 8 of the AEE correctly identifies all other relevant statutory documents to be assessed against. I do not anticipate that the proposal would be highly inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of these documents.