BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081e Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report

EVIDENCE REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS BY ROSS EDWARD COOPER FOR SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT

26 JANUARY 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY ...... 3 PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ...... 6 2. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 3. CODE OF CONDUCT ...... 6 4. SCOPE ...... 6 5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL ...... 7 6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS ...... 8 PART B: OVERVIEW OF SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ...... 9 7. CONTEXT ...... 9 8. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ...... 11 9. PAUP FRAMEWORK ...... 12 PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 12 10. SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ...... 12 11. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 15 12. INCORRECTLY CODED SUBMISSION POINTS ...... 16 PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS ...... 16 13. PRECINCT ASSESSMENT ...... 16 14. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS ...... 18 15. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP ...... 30 16. CONCLUSIONS ...... 30 ATTACHMENT A: CV OF REPORT WRITER ATTACHMENT B: TRACK CHANGES TO THE SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT ATTACHMENT C: PAUP PLANNING MAPS AS NOTIFIED ATTACHMENT D: AREA COVERED BY THE SAINT HELIERS VILLAGE CENTRE PLAN IN THE OPERATIVE DISTRICT PLAN ATTACHMENT E: PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY ATTACHMENT F: TRACK CHANGES TO THE SAINT HELIERS CHARACTER STATEMENT

1. SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this Evidence Report (Report) is to consider submissions and further submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts Geographical Areas (Topic 081). This Report considers submissions and further submissions received by Auckland Council (the Council) in relation to Saint Heliers precinct.

1.2 The Report includes proposals on whether, in my opinion, it is appropriate to support or not support the submissions, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters raised in submissions.

1.3 The purpose of the precinct is to identify and enhance the key characteristics of Saint Heliers Village, and to encourage high quality development that reinforces the Village’s unique qualities. The provisions of Plan Changes (145 and subsequently 145A) to the Auckland City Council District Plan – Isthmus Section) were subject to an Environment Court hearing and were subsequently approved by the Environment Court on 26 February 2009. The Environment Court decision1 confirmed a local character or ‘sense of place’ present within Saint Heliers Village that is worthy of protection and enhancement through the Saint Heliers Centre Plan.

1.4 The Centre Plan of the legacy plan defines the character of Saint Heliers Village under the headings “History”, “Landscape”, “Urban Structure”, “Streetscape” and “Built Environment”. It introduces activities incentivising the consideration of replacement buildings as part of applications to demolish existing buildings, and provides assessment criteria specific to the assessment of new buildings and additions or alterations to existing buildings. As a means of strengthening the built form characteristics of Saint Heliers, two key development controls are included, as follows:

. “Frontage setback control”

Requires a building setback of 2.5m depth at a height of 8.5m on the site boundary.

. “Access and parking”

o No new vehicle crossings to sites fronting certain roads

1 Kennedy v Auckland City Council, A110/2008 (Interim Decision) and A016/09, (Final Decision). The final decision approved PC 145 and attached the relevant provisions.

Page 3

o On-site parking and loading on sites fronting certain streets not to front those street

o Required car parking for non-residential activities on sites fronting certain streets not required.

1.5 To provide for the ongoing development of Saint Heliers, I consider that a precinct is the most appropriate method to provide for these site specific matters as the precinct specifically defines the existing local characteristics that contribute to the ‘sense of place’ within Saint Heliers. These characteristics have been reflected throughout the precinct description, objectives and policies, development controls and assessment criteria. The proposed provisions complement those of the underlying Local Centre zone and therefore the precinct approach avoids the need to repeat those provisions within a separate zone.

1.6 For the reason set out in the discussion at paragraphs 14.2 to 14.6 below, I propose that the precinct boundary be amended to exclude that land zoned Mixed Housing Urban, so that the precinct only includes that land within the Local Centre zone.

1.7 In my view, the outcomes anticipated under the proposed precinct provisions cannot be satisfactorily achieved through reliance on overlays or the underlying Local Centre zone. The Council’s position in evidence to date has concluded that there are no buildings or areas warranting protection or management under either the Special (Historic) Character or Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control overlays. While the Additional Zone Height Control overlay may be able to assign an overall height limit, the mechanism does not possess the subtlety of a development control to provide for building setbacks from street boundaries. With regard to the underlying Local Centre zone, while there are similar setback provisions across the business provisions, they do not provide specific outcomes sought for Saint Heliers, and are applied broadly across the region.

1.8 The main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones or Auckland-wide provisions are set out in Table 1 below:

Table 1:

Main precinct provision or group of Difference from PAUP provisions changes

Description, objectives, policies, More restrictive than the underlying

Page 4

development controls, assessment Local Centre zone as it provides a more criteria and character statement local / bespoke planning response than is possible if relying on the broadly applied Local Centre zone, or overlays.

The precinct provides a detailed, Saint Heliers specific context, and define those physical qualities within Saint Heliers that warrant protection (through the precinct description, rules and criteria).

The ‘Saint Heliers Character Statement’ (Part 5: Appendix 11.2.1) contributes to this outcome also.

Activities and notification Identical. No activity table or specific notification requirements proposed through the precinct.

Development controls More restrictive than the Local Centre zone:

. Maximum height reduced from 18m to 12.5m (Council’s position in evidence on Topic 051-054)

. Building setback requirement from 8.5m (no setback requirements within the Local Centre zone)

. Buildings required to be built to the street edge

. Restrictions on vehicle access across street frontages and the location of on-site car parking

Page 5

1.9 Overall, it is my view that the use of a precinct as a method to implement the Saint Heliers Centre Plan provisions from the legacy plan is the most appropriate and efficient planning approach for the PAUP. The precinct provides an appropriate balance between regional consistency and local variation and includes a suite of provisions that build on the provisions of the underlying zone. Further, the use of precincts avoids introducing a new zone that repeats much of the same content of existing zones. In my view, the Saint Heliers precinct achieves these outcomes and is appropriate for inclusion within the PAUP as a precinct.

PART A: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Although I was not involved in the preparation of the sections of the PAUP concerning the Saint Heliers precinct, I have been engaged by the Auckland Council (Council) to provide evidence on submissions received in relation to this precinct for the Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) (Topic 081) hearing. The purpose of this Report is to consider submissions and further submissions received by the Council in relation to Saint Heliers precinct.

2.2 The Report includes proposals on whether, in my opinion, it is appropriate to support or not support the submissions, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to address matters raised in submissions.

3. CODE OF CONDUCT

3.1 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person.

4. SCOPE

4.1 I am providing planning evidence in relation to Topic 081 and specifically in relation to the submissions made on the Saint Heliers precinct (Sections F2.19 and K2.19 – Saint Heliers precinct) of the PAUP. This statement of evidence addresses all submissions related to the objectives, polices and rules of the Saint Heliers precinct provisions.

Page 6

4.2 In preparing this statement of evidence I have relied on the Auckland-wide evidence of John Duguid to hearing Topics 080 and Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts Geographic (Topic 081) which sets out the statutory framework, methodology, principles and section 32 evaluations used to guide the development and application of zones and precincts.

4.3 The following expert statement of evidence has been relied upon in preparing my Report:

(a) John Michael Duguid for Topic 080 (03 December 2015)

(b) Matthew James Riley for Topic 081 (Saint Heliers precinct), which provides urban design responses to submissions.

4.4 The starting point for the consideration of submissions to the precinct is the notified version of the precinct. I have also considered the Council’s evidence position on Topics 051-054 (Business) and Topics 59, 60, 62 and 63 (Residential), and the Council’s rezoning principles which underpin the rezoning work that has been undertaken by the Council.

4.5 This Report relies on the changes to the underlying Local Centre zone as proposed by the Council in the primary and rebuttal statements of evidence of Jeremy Wyatt to hearing Topic 051-054 (Business), and the Mixed Housing Urban zone as proposed by the Council in the primary and rebuttal statement of evidence of Nick Roberts to hearing Topic 059, 060, 062 and 063 (Residential). The Council’s evidence of Rebecca Fogel (Heritage) and Deborah Rowe (Planning) for Topic 079 (Special Character and Pre-1944 Mapping) and Lisa Mein (Planning) for Topics 029 (Special Character) and 079 is also of relevance and has been considered.

5. INTERIM GUIDANCE FROM THE PANEL

5.1 I have read the Panel’s Interim Guidance direction and in particular those relating to:

(a) Chapter G: General Provisions, dated 9 March 2015;

(b) Best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts, dated 31 July 2015;

(c) Chapter G: Regional and District Rules, dated 9 October 2015.

Page 7

6. PAUP APPROACH TO PRECINCTS

6.1 The approach to precincts is detailed in the evidence of Mr Duguid. In particular Mr Duguid outlines the Plan structure and the relationship between overlays, zones, Auckland-wide and precinct provisions. Mr Duguid also provides an overview of the methodology for applying precincts and the types of precincts identified in the PAUP. I have read and agree with this evidence.

Section 32 and 32AA

6.2 As outlined in the Auckland Unitary Plan Evaluation Report (the Evaluation Report), the Council has focussed its section 32 assessment on the objectives and provisions within the PAUP that represent significant changes in approach from those within the current operative Auckland RMA policies and plans. Whilst the Evaluation Report applies to the entire plan, the report targets the 50 topics where the provisions represent a significant policy shift.

6.3 The precinct issues to which this Report relates are not specifically discussed in the Evaluation Report, however they reflect recent decisions of the Environment Court and have been the subject of a s32 process.

6.4 In relation to my proposed changes to the notified PAUP, I have assessed them in accordance with s32AA.

6.5 The objectives in a district plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA2.

6.6 Chapter F2.19 contains one objective. In response to submissions, I do not propose any changes to the objective or any additional objectives. The objective can be linked to particular parts of the purpose and principles of the RMA. I have outlined below the sections of the Act that the objective responds to.

PAUP Objective RMA The unique and established built form character, F2.19 s7(b), s7(c), beachside setting, natural environment, and amenity of Objective 1 s7(f) St Heliers are maintained and enhanced

2 RMA s32(1)(a)

Page 8

6.7 The policies are for addressing the issues and objectives. Each provision is to be examined as to whether it is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives by:

a) identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives;3

b) assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives, including4:

. identifying and assessing the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including opportunities for economic growth and employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced;5 and

. quantifying these benefits and costs where practicable;6 and

. assessing the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions.7

6.8 Such an examination has been undertaken as part of the analysis of submissions on Chapters F2.19 and K2.19. The result is reflected in the amendments to the provisions I have proposed at Attachment B.

PART B: OVERVIEW OF SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT

7. CONTEXT

7.1 The existing PAUP precinct as notified is located across four blocks fronting Tamaki Drive to the north and bounded by Lombard Street to the east, Polygon Road to the south, and Goldie Street to the west. It is important to note that the PAUP precinct expands the centre plan area to include the residential areas of Lombard and Goldie Streets immediately to the east and west of the Saint Heliers village. Saint Heliers Bay Road runs perpendicular to Tamaki Drive and bisects the precinct. A small group of three sites located on the southwestern corner of the Saint Heliers Bay Road / Polygon Road intersection are also included within the precinct boundary. The precinct location is shown in Map 1 contained in Attachment C.

3 RMA s32(1)(b)(i) 4 RMA s32(1)(b)(ii) 5 RMA s32(2)(a) 6 RMA s32(2)(b) 7 RMA s32(2)(c)

Page 9

7.2 The purpose of the precinct is to identify and enhance the key characteristics of Saint Heliers Village, and to encourage high quality development that reinforces the Village’s unique qualities. The PAUP precinct provisions as notified form the base of the proposed tracked changes in Attachment B.

7.3 The precinct was developed as part of the notified version of the PAUP in order to give effect to a 2009 Environment Court decision relating to the Saint Heliers Centre Plan (Auckland City Council plan modifications 145 and subsequently 145A). A plan setting out the area of the centre plan in the legacy plan is included at Attachment D.

7.4 The underlying zoning of land in the Saint Heliers precinct is a combination of Local Centre zone and Mixed Housing Urban zone. There is a request to ‘upzone’ the Mixed Housing Urban area within the precinct to the Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, which is addressed in the Eastern Isthmus Zoning Evidence Report.

7.5 The following overlays apply within the Saint Heliers precinct:

a. Infrastructure: High Land Transport Route Noise

b. Infrastructure: Designations – ID 1602, Council carpark, Designations, Auckland Transport

c. Historic Heritage: Heritage Place [rcp/dp] – 1854, St Heliers Bay Library

d. Historic Heritage: Heritage Extent of Place [rcp/dp] – 1854, St Heliers Bay Library

e. Natural Resource: Natural hazards – Coastal Inundation – 1m sea level rise

f. Natural Resource: Natural hazards – Coastal Inundation – 2m sea level rise

g. Natural Heritage: Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas – T8, Rangitoto Island, Extent of Volcanic Viewshafts [rps]

h. Natural Heritage: Viewshaft Contours [i]

7.6 The surrounding area is strongly defined by its relationship to the Hauraki Gulf, Rangitoto Island and Tamaki Drive. The flat land covered by the precinct is bounded by Tamaki Drive and the waterfront to the north, and by sloping hillsides / ridgelines to the south, east and west, which help frame it to the water. These geological features have influenced the development of the commercial and residential activities within Saint Heliers, with the low level of development across the flat land that

Page 10

includes the local centre affording wide views to the north from the residential properties positioned on the hills behind.

7.7 The Saint Heliers precinct is a simple, single-layer precinct. A single set of controls applies which recognise and manage the characteristics and environmental issues within the precinct.

8. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT

8.1 The Council’s evidence on Topic 080 General – Residential and 081 General – Precincts prepared by John Duguid discusses the relevant statutory framework for the zoning aspects of the two topics. That discussion specifically references key sections of the Resource Management Act (RMA), the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS), the Auckland Plan, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS), the structure of the PAUP and the zoning framework included within the PAUP. Reference is also made to the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) and relevant Interim Guidance from the Panel.

8.2 I agree with and rely on the assessment provide by John Duguid, and do not repeat that here. Further to that assessment, I have considered the following statutory documents:

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

8.3 Chapter B7.4 (RPS, Managing the Hauraki Gulf / Te Moana Nui o Toi / Tikapa Moana) seeks to give effect to sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA). This includes the protection and enhancement of ecological areas and marine ecosystems, and historic resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments; the maintenance and enhancement of the significant open space, recreation and amenity values of the Hauraki Gulf, and the generation of economic well-being from the use of the Hauraki Gulf’s natural and physical resources without resulting in further degradation of environmental quality or adversely affecting the life supporting capacity of marine ecosystems.

8.4 The precinct is located within a catchment of the Hauraki Gulf, and development and use of that land must therefore give effect to the HGMPA.

8.5 In my view, the key components of the precinct that need to be managed in order to meet the purpose of the HGMPA relate to the environmental effects associated with

Page 11

earthworks and development such as erosion, stormwater runoff, contamination, air quality and coastal inundation. These matters have been addressed comprehensively through evidence on the RPS and Auckland-wide rules, and do not warrant consideration on a precinct level here.

8.6 In the context of the PAUP as a whole, it is my view that the precinct gives effect to the HGMPA.

9. PAUP FRAMEWORK

Regional Policy Statement

9.1 Key sections of the PAUP RPS, as proposed to be amended by the Council, which need to be considered and given effect to include:

(a) Section 1 – Enabling quality urban growth

(b) Section 2 – Enabling economic well-being

9.2 The precinct identifies the key characteristics of the built environment that contribute to the sense of place within Saint Heliers, and seek to retain and enhance those characteristics. In my view, the precinct gives effect to overarching Issues 1 and 2 of the RPS.

PART C: OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS

10. SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT

10.1 A total of 389 submissions covering 467 submission points have been received requesting relief in relation to the Saint Heliers precinct. A total of 17 further submissions covering 113 further submission points have been received on the primary submissions.

10.2 Of the 467 submission points received:

(a) 354 submission points are seeking to restrict the maximum residential building height within Lombard and Goldie Streets to 9m. A further 22 submission points seek that the height limit across the precinct be limited to between 8.5m and 9.5m, or two-storeys or three storeys.

i. A total of 25 further submission points have been received relating to the maximum permitted height within the precinct, 17 of which oppose a

Page 12

decrease in maximum height from 12.5m to 9m, and 8 which support the reduction.

(b) The submission by Ted and Maria Manson (4579-1) seeks the deletion of the “Frontage setback control and maximum height” development control, as they consider the higher limits provided for within the underlying zones to be more appropriate.

i. No further submissions were received on this point.

(c) 368 submission points seek to retain and enhance the character of Saint Heliers. The majority of these submissions focus on some or all of the following matters:

. Maintaining and enhancing the Saint Heliers “seaside village” character; and

. Limiting building height and requiring a building setback

. The retention of the pre-1944 demolition control overlay and heritage overlay

. Providing for a wide range of commercial tenancies.

. A number of further submissions were received in support and opposition to the above matters.

(d) 6 submission points were received requesting the inclusion of design guidelines within the Saint Heliers character statement as a means of ensuring the retention of the character of Saint Heliers.

i. The further submission by Ancona Properties Limited (FS 1182) opposes these points.

(e) A total of 9 submission points were received relating to the demolition of buildings within the precinct. 7 submission points were received seeking amendments to precinct provisions to encourage the adaptive re-use of existing buildings as an alternative to demolition. In contrast, the submission by Ted and Maria Manson (4579-3) seeks the substantial demolition of buildings be a restricted controlled activity, and the submission by Ancona Properties Limited (5649-1) seeks that any reference to demolition of buildings is removed from the precinct, and dealt with in line with the

Page 13

underlying zones, or any applicable overlays (Pre-1944 Demolition Control, or Historic Heritage).

i. The further submissions of Civic Trust Auckland (FS 3401) and The Character Coalition (FS 2209) support the primary submission of Save our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents’ Association Incorporated (6770-2 and 3) relating to encouraging the adaptive reuse of buildings and avoiding demolition by neglect. In their further submission, Save our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents’ Association Incorporated (FS 2175) oppose the Ancona Properties Limited submission.

(f) 13 submissions seek amendments to the precinct provisions to provide for a wide range of commercial tenancies, with the overall concern being to prevent the proliferation of cafés, bars and restaurants, and ensuring that Saint Heliers remains as a ‘local service centre’.

i. Further submissions by Ancona Properties Limited (FS 1182) and Progressive Enterprises Limited (FS 2209) oppose a restriction on the type or level of business that may operate within the precinct. A small number of further submissions, including from Save our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents’ Association Incorporated (FS 2175) and The Character Coalition (FS 2209), support the primary submissions.

(g) The Auckland Council (5716-1116) submission seeks that the precinct boundaries be amended so that all sites within the Mixed Housing Urban zone on Goldie Street and Lomdard Street are excluded from the precinct.

i. Four further submissions support this request, and three oppose it.

(h) The submissions by Save our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents Association (6770-5 and 6) and Keith G Savory (7608- 4) seek that the assessment criteria be articulated in compulsory terms i.e. use of words such as “must” rather than “should”.

i. Four further submission points, from The Character Coalition (FS 2209) and Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents’ Association (FS 3497) support these requests. Four further submission points, from Ancona Properties

Page 14

Limited (FS 1182) and Ted and Maria Manson (FS 3364) oppose these requests.

(i) The submissions by Save our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents Association (6770-9) and Janet Burns (7561-8) seeks that all applications to substantially alter or demolish and rebuild within Saint Heliers village be publicly notified. A small number of other submitters request the same or similar.

i. Ancona Properties Limited (FS 1182) and Ted and Maria Manson (FS 3364) oppose submission point 6770-9, while The Character Coalition (FS 2209) support it.

(j) The submission by Ancona Properties Limited (5649-2) seeks that the activity status for infringements to the “Access and car parking” development control be changed from a discretionary activity to a restricted discretionary activity.

(k) Save our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents’ Association Incorporated (FS 2175)The submission by Gabrielle Ryan (7690- 8) seeks that all new buildings be required to have well-designed roof lines that do not have visible air conditioning and pipes.

i. No further submissions were received on this point.

(l) The submission by Richard Oddy (322-13) seeks that the Tamaki Drive Master Plan be incorporated into the Unitary Plan.

i. No further submissions were received to this point.

10.3 No discussions have been held with submitters in relation to this precinct.

11. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SUBMISSIONS

11.1 As outlined in Mr Duguid’s evidence, a number of amendments are proposed which are, or may be out of scope of the submissions. This is to ensure:

(a) that the most appropriate PAUP method is used to address the precinct matters

(b) the removal of duplication following a comparison review of the precinct to the amended PAUP position as proposed in the Council’s closing statements to the Panel.

Page 15

(c) consistency in the organisation and terminology of all precincts

11.2 Additionally I have proposed a number of amendments to the Saint Heliers precinct to correct minor technical or editorial errors. There are no particular submissions to which these amendments respond. All amendments are shown in my track changes included as Attachment B.

12. INCORRECTLY CODED SUBMISSION POINTS

12.1 Submission point (2916-1) by Jennefer M Rowe was incorrectly coded to Topic 081 (Rezoning). The submission seeks to reduce heights in the commercial area of Saint Heliers. This evidence addresses the height of the commercial part of Saint Heliers, which forms the Saint Heliers precinct. Consideration of this submission is addressed as part of the general discussion on building height, built form character and streetscape, as set out in the discussion below.

PART D: ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

13. PRECINCT ASSESSMENT

13.1 As noted in paragraph 7.3 above, the Saint Heliers precinct was developed as part of the notified version of the PAUP in order to give effect to a 2009 Environment Court decision relating to the Saint Heliers Village Centre Plan (Auckland City Council plan modifications 145 and subsequently 145A). A plan setting out the area of the centre plan is included at Attachment D. It is important to note that the PAUP precinct expands the ‘centre plan’ area to include the residential areas immediately to the east and west of the Saint Heliers village. A plan setting out the area of the precinct as notified is included at Attachment C

13.2 The over-arching purpose of the Saint Heliers precinct is to identify and enhance the key characteristics of Saint Heliers Village, and to encourage high quality development that reinforces the Village’s unique qualities.

13.3 It is my view that the use of a precinct as a method to implement the Saint Heliers Centre Plan provisions from the legacy plan is the most appropriate and efficient planning approach for the PAUP. The precinct provides an appropriate balance between regional consistency and local variation and includes a suite of provisions that build on the provisions of the underlying zone. Further, the use of precincts avoids introducing a new zone that repeats much of the same content of existing

Page 16

zones. In my view, the Saint Heliers precinct achieves these outcomes and is appropriate for inclusion within the PAUP as a precinct which relies on the underlying Local Centre zone provisions, but introduces bespoke provisions to achieve local variation.

Overview

13.4 A significant number of submitters and further submitters seek amendments to the precinct as notified. The key themes of submissions on the Saint Heliers precinct are:

(a) That the precinct boundary be amended to exclude those sites fronting Lombard and Goldie Street.

(b) Retention of the ‘seaside village character’ of Saint Heliers Village. This broad topic includes the following matters:

(i) What is the Saint Heliers seaside village ‘sense of place’? Is it worth protecting and enhancing? If so, is a precinct the appropriate mechanism?

(ii) Specific protection of individual buildings from demolition or inappropriate redevelopment

(1) Retention or addition of the Pre-1944 Demolition Control, Historic Heritage and Special Character overlays across the precinct

(2) Restrictions on demolition of buildings and the encouragement of adaptive re-use of existing buildings as an alternative to demolition

(iii) Height of buildings and the requirement for a building setback

(c) That a wide range of activities be enabled through the precinct in order to retain the ‘local service centre’ function of Saint Heliers Village.

(d) Notification

(e) The inclusion of design guidelines as part of the Saint Heliers Character Statement

Page 17

14. ANALYSIS OF PRECINCT PROVISIONS

14.1 The main differences between the precinct and the relevant overlays, zones or Auckland-wide provisions are set out in Table 1 below:

Main precinct provision or group of Difference from PAUP provisions changes

Description, objectives, policies, More restrictive than the underlying development controls, assessment Local Centre zone as it provides a more criteria and character statement local / bespoke planning response than is possible if relying on the broadly applied Local Centre zone, or overlays.

The precinct provides a detailed, Saint Heliers specific context, and define those physical qualities within Saint Heliers that warrant protection (through the precinct description, rules and criteria).

The ‘Saint Heliers Character Statement’ (Part 5: Appendix 11.2.1) contributes to this outcome also.

Activities and notification Identical. No activity table or specific notification requirements proposed through the precinct.

Development controls More restrictive than the Local Centre zone:

. Maximum height reduced from 18m to 12.5m (Council’s position in evidence on Topic 051-054)

. Building setback requirement from 8.5m (no setback requirements within the Local Centre zone)

. Buildings required to be built to the

Page 18

street edge

. Restrictions on vehicle access across street frontages and the location of on-site car parking

Precinct boundary

14.2 The submission by Auckland Council (5716-1160) seeks that the precinct boundary be amended to exclude all sites zoned Mixed Housing Urban on Goldie Street and Lombard Street.

14.3 Mr Riley on behalf of the Council discusses the urban design merits of this request at paragraphs 10.1 to 10.6 of his evidence. Mr Riley states in his evidence that:

“I consider there is no strong urban design reason for these MHU zoned sites to be within the precinct. Removal of them from the precinct would reduce the maximum permitted height on these lots from the 12.5m enabled under the precinct to the 11m plus 1m for a pitched roof permitted in the MHU zone itself (as per Council’s rebuttal version of the residential provisions).”

14.4 Mr Riley has undertaken a brief assessment of the likely development potential achievable on these sites, and concludes that there is limited capacity to reach the 12.5m height limit of the precinct once the height in relation to boundary control is applied. Even those sites with a wider street frontage at approximately 20m would only provide a fourth floor at around 4m in width.

14.5 I agree with Mr Riley’s assessment and conclusions, and consider that the development potential ‘loss’ of removing the MHU zoned sites from the precinct, and the associated reduction in permitted building height, is not significant.

14.6 I support the relief sought in the Auckland Council submission, and propose that the precinct boundary be amended to exclude not only those sites zoned Mixed Housing Urban on Goldie Street and Lombard Street, but also those sites fronting the western side of Maheke Street. This would see the precinct apply only to the land zoned Local Centre. These changes are set out in Attachment E. Consequential amendments to the text of the precinct are required in order to remove references to the MHU zone and any specific provisions relating to that land.

Page 19

Retention of the ‘seaside village character’ of Saint Heliers Village

14.7 A significant number of submitters have identified a desire for the precinct provisions to better protect the established ‘character’ or ‘sense of place’ of the Saint Heliers Village. This coincides with a significant number of submitters requesting the maximum permitted height within the precinct be lowered.

14.8 It is my view that these two matters, which are core to the submissions, are closely linked, with the built form characteristics of the precinct being a significant component of this established ‘character’ or ‘sense of place’.

What is the Saint Heliers seaside village ‘character’ or ‘sense of place’? Is it worth protecting and enhancing? If so, is a precinct the appropriate mechanism?

14.9 I consider that there is an identifiable seaside village ‘sense of place’ present within the Saint Heliers local centre that warrants protection and enhancement. This sense of place is derived from a combination of its beachfront setting, the pattern of subdivision and road layout, the diverse range of building styles and types, the predominant one and two storey height of existing buildings, and how they relate to the street and wider Saint Heliers Bay waterfront. At paragraph 1.3 of his precinct evidence for Council, Mr Riley states in his evidence that:

“St Heliers’ seaside location and its block structure are inalienable components of its sense of place. These are contributed to be the one to two storey heights of the majority of buildings and the quality of the pedestrian realm on retail streets, due to the absence of vehicle crossings, car parking and loading spaces across footpaths and in front of buildings.”

14.10 This sense of place or local character is identified in the PAUP through the precinct provisions (the precinct description in particular), and is largely consistent with the plan change process (completed in 2009) that led to the development of the Saint Heliers Centre Plan in the Auckland City Council Operative District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999).

14.11 Three submissions, by Graham A and Fran Wright (reference), Diana M Ozich (reference) and Frank A Young (reference), request that the Saint Heliers precinct be changed to a Special Character Area.

14.12 As discussed in more detail below, the PAUP uses overlays to identify individual or groups of buildings that warrant a higher level of protection from demolition and

Page 20

redevelopment. Overlay provisions sit above precincts in the PAUP hierarchy, and accordingly, the precinct provisions need to be able to operate independently of any such overlay requirements. I note that Saint Heliers is not subject to the Council's Historic Character overlay, and the Pre-1944 BDC is proposed to be uplifted. It is my view that the amenity values and seaside character of the Saint Heliers Village be managed through a precinct to maintain and enhance its seaside character, and that a precinct is the appropriate mechanism to do this.

Specific protection of existing buildings

14.13 A key component of submissions on the precinct is a desire to protect existing buildings from demolition and / or inappropriate redevelopment. In this regard, submitters are linking the ‘sense of place’ directly with the physical attributes of the existing buildings.

Pre-1944 Demolition Control / Historic Heritage / Special Character Business overlays

14.14 The PAUP provides additional protection to individual or groups of buildings through use of the “Historic Heritage” overlay, the “Pre-1944 Demolition Control” overlay, or the “Special Character” (now “Historic Character”) overlay. This is acknowledged through a number of submissions.

14.15 Under the notified version of the PAUP, one building within the precinct is identified on the Historic Heritage overlay, that being the Saint Heliers Bay Library (reference 01854, Category B), and approximately 60% of the precinct area is identified on the Pre-1944 Demolition Control overlay, including the two central blocks bounded by Tamaki Drive, Turua Street, Polygon Road and Maheke Street. The Historic Character overlay does not apply to any sites within the precinct, nor is it being proposed

14.16 The Council’s evidence on Topic 079 (Special Character and Pre-1944 Mapping) has proposed the deletion of the Pre-1944 Demolition Control overlay from all sites within the precinct, and it is within this context that the following comments are made.

14.17 In light of the above, the Council’s position in evidence for Topic 079 on the quality of the individual or groups of buildings within the precinct boundary is that, with the exception of the scheduled St Heliers Bay Library, none reach the threshold to warrant the management through those overlays. My position remains that the precinct mechanism is appropriate to manage the seaside character and maintain the amenity values of Saint Heliers. I note that this position accords with the outcomes of

Page 21

the recent plan change process relating to the Saint Heliers Centre Plan, as elaborated on below.

Restrictions on demolition, demolition by neglect, and the encouragement of adaptive re-use

14.18 While the Pre-1944 BDC and HC overlays do not apply to the buildings within the precinct, the precinct provisions as notified nevertheless provide protection to all buildings within the precinct.

14.19 Where an application proposes to substantially demolish an existing building, the precinct provisions incentivises the inclusion of plans for a replacement building as part of that application through a controlled activity status. A standalone application for demolition of a building is a discretionary activity within the precinct. This is consistent with the provisions of the Saint Heliers Centre Plan under the Operative District Plan.

14.20 However, the precinct provisions do not encourage adaptive re-use of buildings or prevent demolition, they simply incentivise plans for a replacement building to be assessed at the same time as an application for demolition of an existing building. The buildings themselves are afforded no protection, with a controlled activity assessment being confined to site management effects, and timing.

14.21 The submission by Ted and Maria Manson (4579-3) seeks that the substantial demolition of buildings within the precinct be a controlled activity, regardless of whether plans for a replacement building form part of an application, and consider that the demolition of buildings should be determined independently of an application to construct a new building.

14.22 The submission by Ancona Properties Limited (5649-1) seeks that the activity table be amended by deleting any reference to the demolition, additions and alterations, and new buildings. The reasoning is that demolition controls should only apply to Pre-1944 buildings and scheduled historic heritage places, and that all matters are identified within the underlying zones and do not need to be repeated at the precinct level.

14.23 For the reasons set out below, it is my view that the controlled and discretionary activities for demolition should both be deleted from the precinct, with the activity status ultimately relying on the underlying zone, or any applicable overlay.

Page 22

a) With the exception of the Saint Heliers Bay Library, no individual or group of buildings has been specifically identified as warranting an additional level of protection under the Pre-1944 Demolition Control overlay or the Historic Character overlay. In the absence of any specific higher level of protection, the provisions of the underlying zone apply. Accordingly, I consider that the most appropriate outcome would be for these buildings to be subject to the same permitted activity status for demolition that applies across the Local Centre zone.

b) The character of the Saint Heliers Village is not derived from the specific design details or age of its existing buildings, but rather from the more general bulk and location of the existing buildings and how these define the streetscape. That is to say that it is not an ‘historic character’ or ‘special character’, but instead is defined by the one to two storey nature of buildings, built to the street edge. In this regard, a replacement building may contribute the same qualities as an existing building without compromising the ‘sense of place’ of Saint Heliers. Accordingly, I consider a better approach is to ensure that the replacement building is appropriate within the context of the Saint Heliers Village, rather than placing undue restrictions on the demolition of buildings. This can be achieved through development controls, assessment criteria, and more explicit description of the qualities of the village that are worthy of retention and enhancement through the precinct provisions (refer to Attachment B), and the Saint Heliers Character Statement (refer to Attachment F).

14.24 Further to the above, a total of 4 submission points were received requesting amendments to the precinct provisions to encourage the adaptive re-use of existing buildings as an alternative to demolition of buildings, and to avoid demolition by neglect.

14.25 As noted previously, and with the exception of the Saint Heliers Bay Library (which is protected by the Historic Heritage overlay), no individual or groups of buildings have been identified as warranting a higher level of protection. Accordingly, I do not think it is necessary to include provisions to provide the relief sought in this case.

Built form

14.26 The following discussion focusses on the details of the bespoke planning provisions for the Saint Heliers precinct, which, as per the comments previously, focus on the built form of new development and its contribution to the sense of place of the area.

Page 23

Height of buildings and the requirement for a building setback

14.27 The submission by Ted and Maria Manson (4579-1) seeks that rule 3.1 (Frontage setback control and maximum height) be deleted. This control provides for a maximum frontage height of 8.5m (up to 9.5m where a balcony, parapet or roof penetrates the control). Above this height, a 2.5m setback from the street frontage is required up to a maximum height of 12.5m. If this rule were to be deleted, as per the request, there would be no setback requirement, an 18m height limit would apply within the Local Centre zoned sites, and an 11m (plus 1m for pitched roofs) would apply within the Mixed Housing Urban zoned sites.

14.28 Mr Riley discusses the urban design merits of the rule at paragraphs 6.1 to 6.10 of his evidence. Mr Riley states in his evidence that:

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

“The 8.5m-9.5m maximum frontage height and maximum 12.5m building height proposed by development control 3.1 limits building frontages to a height I consider complementary with the majority of lower-scale buildings within the precinct. The rule enables an increase in height, set back from the street, that is proportionate to the maximum permitted frontage height, so ensuring that the upper storeys of any new building appear visually recessive.

“In my view, the rule is an effective tool to allow an increase of building height while managing its potential dominance effects to ensure that the established character, as viewed from street frontages, of one to two storeys, is maintained.”

14.29 In addition to Ted and Maria Mason’s request that the height limits within the underlying zone be relied upon, a total of 354 submissions were received requesting that the maximum permitted height on the streets to the periphery of the precinct (Goldie and Lombard Streets) be reduced to 9m. A further 13 submissions seek that the maximum permitted height limit across the precinct be reduced to 9m, and the submission by Lauren Hawken (5909-1) seeks that the maximum permitted height limit across the precinct be reduced to 8.5m.

14.30 My Riley states at paragraph 6.7 to 6.10 of his evidence:

Page 24

“I consider that an increase in height to the 18m permitted within the underlying Local Centre zone, which would result from the requested deletion of control 3.1, would not be consistent with the predominant one to two storey building height.”

“I appreciate that height permitted on the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone sites to the south of Polygon Road, directly adjoining the precinct, is 16m and up to 18m as a restricted discretionary activity. This may appear inconsistent and at odds with the 12.5m permitted within the precinct itself. In my view, however, this height differential is appropriate as it helps reinforce (as described in the character statement) the amphitheatre nature of the surrounding visual landscape.

“I note that a number of submitters have requested that the maximum permitted 12.5m height within the precinct be reduced. Reasons for this request include a desire to avoid a canyon effect of taller buildings lining the precinct’s streets.

I do not consider a reduction in the permitted height necessary as, in my view, the notified frontage height control is an appropriate tool to manage built form such that the primary visual impression to the streets within the centre will be of one to two storey buildings.”

14.31 I agree with and rely on Mr Riley’s assessment and conclusions on the matter of building height and setback. Accordingly, I do not support the request by Ted and Maria Manson to delete rule 3.1, or the submissions requesting a lower height limit across part or all of the precinct.

14.32 In addition to the above, Mr Riley has proposed the addition of a purpose statement to rule 3.1, which I have adopted in the tracked change version of the precinct provisions at Attachment B. Mr Riley also suggests at paragraphs 7.6 and 7.7 of his evidence that a new development control requiring buildings to be built to the street edge would strengthen the existing and valued built form of the centre, a matter which has been heavily submitted on as part of the ‘Saint Heliers character’ submissions. I have considered this suggestion, and while there were no submissions specifically requesting this control, have proposed an out of scope change as detailed in Attachment B, that rule 3.1 be amended to include the requirement to build to the street frontage.

14.33 In response to submissions on the retention and enhancement of the seaside village sense of place of Saint Heliers Village, and the broad range of closely linked matters as discussed above, I proposed a number of amendments throughout the precinct. I

Page 25

will not list those out or justify each proposed change individually here, but note that they cover the following generally:

a) Identification and clear articulation of those characteristics that contribute to the ‘sense of place’ present within the area through the precinct description, objectives and policies.

b) Amendments to the activity table, development controls, notification provision and assessment criteria to provide more certainty of outcome in line with a desire to retain and enhance the factors that contribute to the sense of place.

14.34 The full suite or proposed amendments to the precinct provisions are included at Attachment B to this Report.

Access and car parking

14.35 The submission by Ancona Properties Limited (5649-2) requests that the activity status for infringements to the ‘Access and Car Parking’ development control be changed from a discretionary activity to a restricted discretionary activity.

14.36 I do not support this request. While the default status for development control infringements is a restricted discretionary activity, the PAUP has many examples where the infringement of certain development controls is elevated to a discretionary activity or non-complying activity status.

14.37 It is my view that the ‘Access and car parking’ development control plays a key role in the retention and enhancement of the existing built form characteristics of Saint Heliers Village that the precinct is seeking to protect, and that the broad assessment of potential effects enabled through the discretionary activity status is most appropriate.

Design guidelines

14.38 A total of 6 submissions points were received requesting the inclusion of design guidelines for new development in response to concerns over much of Saint Heliers’ character being lost. The submissions seek that detailed design guidelines be included within the character statement as a requirement for development.

14.39 I support the general intent of these submissions in their desire to ensure that new buildings are appropriate within the context of the existing character of Saint Heliers

Page 26

Village. However, I do not consider that design guidelines are the most appropriate method to achieve this.

14.40 A design statement is required to accompany any application for a new building on a site larger than 500m2 or with a gross floor area of greater than 1,000m2, as per the Local Centre zone rules (rebuttal evidence of Jeremy Wyatt for Auckland Council, Topic 051-054). Any such design statement must include the design response to the character of the site as well as the neighbourhood, and it is considered that the Saint Heliers Character Statement would inform that process.

14.41 Matt Riley discusses the merits of the Saint Heliers Character Statement at paragraphs 8.1 to 8.4 of his evidence, and identifies areas where improvements are needed. Mr Riley is generally supportive of the changes sought in the Ancona Properties Limited (5649-7) submission, including introducing a ‘Built Environment’ section based partly on the text from the Saint Heliers Centre Plan in the Auckland City Council Operative District Plan. Mr Riley also notes that the character statement is unclear as to areas that are within the precinct and those that are outside it but may be within the wider Saint Heliers Village area, for example, Saint Heliers Bay itself and Vellenoweth Green, and considers that the statement would benefit from editing to make it clear which areas are outside the precinct but which offer a contribution to its sense of place.

14.42 In support of the above process, I propose amendments to the precinct provisions (precinct description, objectives, policies, development controls and assessment criteria) and the Saint Heliers Character Statement in order to clarify the neighbourhood character / ‘sense of place’ that are present within Saint Heliers Village, or contribute to it more broadly.

Notification

14.43 The submission by Save Our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents Association Incorporated (6770-9) seeks that all applications seeking to substantially alter or demolish within the precinct be publicly notified. A small number of other submitters request the same or similar.

14.44 As per the above discussion, I propose that all demolition rules be deleted from the precinct as the activity is either addressed via an overlay, or the underlying zone. Accordingly, I consider that the notification provisions applying through the overlay or

Page 27

underlying zone can be relied upon, and that the notification section of the precinct provisions can be deleted in full.

Wide range of activities

14.45 A total of 13 submission points were received regarding small business and providing for a wide range of commercial tenancies. The overall concern seems to be that Saint Heliers will become an entertainment area focussed around cafés, restaurants and bars, and will lose its ‘local service centre’ function.

14.46 The precinct provisions as notified do not seek to control activities the location, scale or number of activities that may occur within the precinct, instead deferring to the underlying zone to address these matters.

14.47 The Local Centre zone (as per Council’s evidence position) provides for a wide range of activities as permitted activities, and also limits the scale of retail tenancies as permitted activities. It is my view that no amendments to this situation through the precinct are needed, and that the activity table of the Local Centre zone is appropriate for Saint Heliers Village.

Assessment criteria

14.48 The submissions by Save Our Saint Heliers Incorporated and Saint Heliers / Glendowie Residents Association (6770-5 and 6) and Keith G Savory (7608-4) seek that the assessment criteria be articulated in compulsory terms i.e. use of words such as “must” rather than “should”. The submitters consider the use of “should” in a regulatory format to be ambiguous.

14.49 I support the general intent of the submission points in that they seek to ensure an unambiguous set of provisions for the precinct. I note that the use of the word “should” is well established in assessment criteria, and that it is the content of the criteria rather than use of the “should” versus “must” that is most important. I propose amendments to the content of the assessment criteria to clarify the outcomes sought through the precinct, but do not propose changes to the use of the word “should” as I consider this provides sufficient direction. In my view, if criteria is worded so as to be highly prescriptive, then a rule may be more appropriate.

14.50 Further to the above, I note that while the infringement of precinct development controls is a discretionary activity, the introduction of purpose statements for each can provide guidance in the assessment of an infringement. Matt Riley has proposed

Page 28

purpose statements for rule 3.1 and 3.2 at paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 of his evidence respectively. I adopt and agree with those purpose statements.

Roof lines

14.51 The submission by Gabrielle Ryan (7690-8) requests that all building be required to have well-designed roof lines that do not have visible air conditioning and pipes.

14.52 I support the intent of the submission, and note that the Council’s rebuttal evidence on Topics 051-054 (Business, prepared by Jeremy Wyatt) includes tracked changes to the assessment criteria for new buildings that in my view address this matter. Chapter i.3 (Business), clause 6.2.5(a)(ix) of the proposed tracked change version includes a requirement to consider the integration of “…building elements, including balconies, signage, plant, exhaust and intake units, into the façade and / or roof design.”

14.53 Accordingly, I consider that the relief sought is met through the underlying zone.

Tamaki Drive Masterplan

14.54 The submission by Richard Oddy (322-13) requests that the Tamaki Drive Masterplan be incorporated into the PAUP.

14.55 I do not support this submission. The Tamaki Drive Masterplan is a recently endorsed Council document that seeks to help direct investment in key projects in the coming years. It is not the role of the PAUP to facilitate projects. That said, in my view the precinct is not inconsistent with the stated outcomes of the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, insomuch as it seeks to retain and enhance the ‘sense of place’ of Saint Heliers, and to ensure that future development is appropriate in its waterfront context.

14.56 Having regard to the requirements of section 32 and 32AA of the RMA and the other statutory criteria of the RMA outlined in the evidence of Mr Duguid and the matters raised by submitters, I consider that the proposed set of provisions as marked up in Attachment B are appropriate for the following reasons:

a) they will result in the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources in that growth can be accommodated within the Rural Urban Boundary and within an identified Local Centre, while protecting those characteristics of the area that make it distinctive, specifically:

Page 29

o The key built form characteristics of the existing built environment that contribute to the sense of place within Saint Heliers Village, and provide a clear policy basis to ensure a quality built environment in the future;

b) they remove duplication of matters dealt with in underlying zones and clarify the hierarchy of PAUP methods; and

c) they simplify the notified version of the plan, creating greater certainty the public in regard to the future form of development within the area, enabling social and economic well-bring.

15. CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE PAUP

15.1 The only consequential amendment required to other parts of the Plan as a result of my evidence is that the precinct boundary would need to be amended to reflect the removal of all Mixed Housing Urban zoned land from the precinct. This change is set out in Attachment B.

16. CONCLUSIONS

16.1 I have considered the submissions received on the Saint Heliers precinct. I consider that the amendments to the precinct boundary as set out in Attachment E, the proposed set of provisions as marked up in Attachment B, and the proposed amendments to the Saint Heliers Character Statement as set out at Attachment F, most appropriately meet the purpose of the Act.

Ross Cooper

26 January 2016

Page 30

ATTACHMENT A: CV OF REPORT WRITER

Career Summary May 2014 – present, Senior Planner at Tattico Limited

June 2005 – May 2014, various planning roles at Auckland Council and its predecessor Auckland City Council, most recently as Principal Planner in the Central and Islands Area Planning Team.

Qualifications BPlan (University of Auckland)

Affiliations GradPlus member of the New Zealand Planning Institute

ATTACHMENT B: TRACK CHANGES TO THE SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

PART 2 • REGIONAL AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES»Chapter F: Precinct objectives and policies»2 Central»

2 Central

2.19 Saint Heliers

The objectives and policies of the underlying Local Centre and the Mixed Housing Urban zones apply in the following precinct and sub-precincts unless otherwise specified. The underlying zoning of the land within this precinct is Local Centre zone. Refer to the planning maps for the location and Comment [T1]: Out of scope extent of the precinct. insertion for consistency with other precincts. Precinct description

The precinct focuses on covers the existing St Heliers commercial centre and immediately adjacent residential development north of Polygon Road, including a small area at the south-western corner of St Heliers Bay Road and Polygon Road. Comment [T2]: Out of scope amendments, consequential to the St Heliers is strongly defined by its relationship to the bay and beachfront of St Heliers Bay, the Hauraki proposal to amend the precinct Gulf, Rangitoto Island and Tāmaki Drive. The urban structure of St Heliers is based on the intersection of boundary to follow the boundary of the Local Centre zoned land only. Tamaki Drive and St Heliers Bay Road, which forms the key axis of the centre and provides connections with the Village’s hinterland and the waterfront. This has led to a structure of primary and secondary commercial frontages and the differentiation of character within St Heliers Village.

The grid street network and its amphitheatre setting, adjacent to a large open space and foreshore, defines the seaside village character of the local centre. The retail precinct has a suburban character and is a compact, mixed use, pedestrian-orientated centre. There is a wide variety of commercial, retail, restaurant / café premises as well as community facilities including the St Heliers Community Library and the War Memorial Hall. There is a generally integrated relationship between the Village centre and the adjacent residential neighbourhood. These features have influenced the development of the commercial and Comment [T3]: Scope 5649-3 residential activities. The St Heliers village is focused on St Heliers Bay Road and the waterfront. It (Ancona Properties Limited) Amended in accordance with the Annexure to The village has a significant number of buildings from the 1920s and 1930s together with a very small this submission number from 1860 to 1920, and a mix of more recent buildings. Its sense of place is derived from a combination of its beachfront setting, the pattern of subdivision and roads, the diverse range of building types and styles, predominantly one and two storeys in height, and how buildings relate to their street frontages and the wider St Heliers Bay waterfront.

The purpose of the precinct is to maintain and enhance the key characteristics of St Heliers Village and to protect and enhance its important amenity values. The development provisions applying within the precinct encourage sympathetic development of high quality, reinforcing the Village’s unique qualities but not so as to “freeze” the built environment. Change, whether by adaptive re-use of existing buildings, or through new development, is to be managed to protect the distinctive “sense of place” of the Village. Innovative and congruent development intended to add to the qualities of St Heliers Village is encouraged. Comment [T4]: Scope 5649-3 (Ancona Properties Limited) Amended The purpose of the precinct is to maintain and enhance the character of St Heliers and to promote its in accordance with the Annexure to amenity values. The provisions recognise that while parts of St Heliers have historic importance, its other this submission intrinsic qualilties or characteristics are also worthy of retention and enhancement. Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the frontage setback and maximum height controls that are applicable within the precinct.

Objective

Page 1 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013) The objectives are as listed in the Local Centre and Mixed Housing Urban zones and in addition to the Comment [T5]: Out of scope objective specified below: amendments, consequential to the 1. The unique and established built form character, beachside setting, natural environment, and proposal to amend the precinct boundary to follow the boundary of amenity of St Heliers are maintained and enhanced. the Local Centre zoned land only.

Comment [T6]: Scope 5649-3 (Ancona Properties Limited) Amended Policies in accordance with the Annexure to The policies are as listed in the Local Centre and Mixed Housing Urban zones in addition to those this submission specified below: 1. Require buildings, vehicle access and car parking to avoid visually or physically dominating the street.

2. Maintain access to sunlight and ensure development is of a human scale through the use of building setbacks and design treatment which is compatible with the established built character of St Heliers.

3. Encourage resource consent applications for replacement buildings first, before resource consent applications for substantial demolition of buildings are made.

4. Require new development to contribute to and enhance the amenity and character of St Heliers.

5. Maintain a sense of place which provides for St Heliers' character. Comment [T7]: Scope 5649-3 (Ancona Properties Limited) Amended 1. Manage building form so that centre streets retain the appearance of a predominant one to two storey in accordance with the Annexure to streetscape. this submission which seeks to delete and replace the notified policies.

2. Avoid new vehicle crossings, car parking and loading spaces on key streets within the precinct in order to retain and encourage the continuity of retail frontages. Comment [T8]: Scope 5649-3 (Ancona Properties Limited) Amended in general accordance with the Annexure to this submission

Page 2 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

PART 3 • REGIONAL AND DISTRICT RULES»Chapter K: Precinct rules»2 Central»

2.19 Saint Heliers

1. Activity table Activities

The activities in the Local Centre and Mixed Housing Urban zones apply in the St Heliers precinct unless otherwise specified in the activity table below.The underlying zone and Comment [T9]: Out of scope Auckland-wide activity tables apply in this precinct unless otherwise specified below. deletion and insertion for consistency with other precincts. Additional assessment criteria relating to “Additions and alterations” and “New buildings” within Comment [T10]: Out of scope the Saint Heliers precinct is set out in section 5.2 of the precinct provisions below. insertion, seeking to more clearly define those qualities that contribute to the character or ‘sense of place’ Activity Activity status within the Saint Heliers precinct. Development Comment [T11]: Scope 5649-1 Substantial demolition of buildings where resource consent has been granted for a C (Ancona Properties Limited) replacement building Comment [T12]: Out of scope Substantial demolition of buildings where resource consent has not been granted for a D deletion as having determined that the demolition control as notified did replacement building not prevent the demolition of Additions and alterations RD buildings, and that overlays that might do this had not been applied to New buildings RD buildings within the zone, it is my view Development of the site at Pt 24 & 25 BLK DP 410 CT NA623/103 (448m2) and PT 24 & RD that the demolition controls should be deleted. Rely on underlying zone. 25 BLK DP410 CT NA 624/111 (465m²) which exceeds the Frontage Setback Control in Figure 1 Comment [T13]: Out of scope below deletion as this activity is a duplicate from the Local Centre zone, therefore 2. Notification can be deleted from the precinct.

Comment [T14]: Out of scope 1. The notification provisions of the Local Centre and Terrace Housing and Apartment deletion as the proposed adjustment Buildings zones apply within the precinct except as outlined below. to precinct boundary means this development site is no longer within

the precinct. 2. The following activities are subject to the normal tests for notification under the relevant sections of the RMA: Comment [T15]: Out of scope deletion to avoid duplication of a. Development which infringes clause 3.1 below, except at Pt 24 & 25 BLK DP 410 CT provisions already provided through NA623/103 (448m2) and PT 24 & 25 BLK DP410 CT NA 624/111 (465m²). the underlying zone.

Comment [T16]: Out of scope 3. Development controls deletion as the proposed adjustment to precinct boundary means this The underlying zone development controls and Auckland-wide controls apply in this precinct, unless development site is no longer within otherwise specified below. the precinct. Comment [T17]: Out of scope 3.1 Frontage alignment, setback control and maximum height insertion for consistency with other precincts. Purpose statement: Manage the frontage alignment, frontage height and building height of Comment [T18]: Out of scope insertion, seeking to more clearly development to maintain a low-scale built form of generally one to two storeys at the street define those qualities that contribute frontage. to the character or ‘sense of place’ 1. Buildings must not exceed 8.5m in height within 2.5m of the site frontage (refer to figure within the Saint Heliers precinct. 1 below), except where: Comment [T19]: Out of scope insertion for consistency with other precincts. Page 3 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013) i. the construction of a balcony or parapet penetrates the frontage setback control by no more than 1.5m.

ii. the construction of a roof penetrates the frontage setback control, provided it is no more than 9.5m high.

b. Where buildings or parts of buildings are not within 2.5m of the street boundary, they must not exceed 12.5m in height. Refer to figures 2 and 3 below for an explanation of the exceptions to this development control.

2. Where buildings or parts of buildings are not within 2.5m of the street boundary, they must not exceed 12.5m and 2 stories in height. Refer to figures 2 and 3 below for an explanation of the exceptions to this development control. 2. Buildings must be built to the street frontage, except where providing vehicle access in accordance with the “Access and car parking” development control below. Without limiting the discretion of the Council to assess any proposed infringement, the following matter will be considered: a. A recess in the street frontage of a building may be appropriate where this creates a well-proportioned outdoor seating or dining area. Comment [T20]: Out of scope amendments seeking to more clearly 3. Development that does not comply with clauses 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 is a discretionary activity. define those qualities that contribute to the character or ‘sense of place’ within the Saint Heliers precinct.

Figure 1: Frontage set back control

Page 4 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

Page 5 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

Figure 2: Frontage set back control – balcony exception

Page 6 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

Figure 3: Frontage set back control – roof exception

3.2 Access and car parking

Purpose statement: Manage the location of vehicle crossings, car parking and loading spaces in order to retain and encourage a continuity of retail frontages. Comment [T21]: Out of scope 1. New vehicle crossings must not be located on sites that front: insertion for consistency with other precincts. a. Tamaki Drive, St Heliers Bay Road and the north side of Polygon Road between Maheke Street and St Heliers Bay Road

b. Maheke Street, Turua Street and the north side of Polygon Road between St Heliers Bay Road and Lombard Street where vehicle access for car parking and loading is available by other means, such as rear service lanes, right•of•ways or from side roads.

2. Car parking and loading spaces, including car parking buildings, must not front Tamaki Drive, St Heliers Bay Road, Turua Street, Polygon Road, or Maheke Street.

3. Development that does not comply with clause 3.2.1 and 2 above is a discretionary activity.

Page 7 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

4. Assessment • Controlled activities

4.1 Matters of control The council will reserve its control to the matters below for the activities listed as controlled in the precinct table: 1. Substantial demolition of buildings where resource consent has been granted for a replacement building: a. timing

b. dust, safety and amenity effects.

4.2 Assessment criteria The council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for the controlled activity listed above. 1. Timing a. The timing of the demolition should be closely linked with commencement of a replacement building on the site.

2. Dust, safety and amenity effects a. Construction, safety and visual amenity effects arising between demolition and commencement of a replacement building should be minimised. Comment [T22]: Deletion consequential to request 5649-1 5. Assessment • Restricted discretionary activities (Ancona Properties Limited) to delete “Substantial demolition of buildings where resource consent been granted 5.1 Matters of discretion for a replacement building. For activities/development that are a restricted discretionary activity in the St Heliers precinct, the council will restrict its discretion to the following matters, in addition to the matters specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the Local Centre and Mixed Housing Urban zones. 1. St Heliers precinct character.

5.2 Assessment criteria 1. St Heliers precinct character Existing buildings: Comment [T23]: Out of scope a. Additions and alterations should maintain the integrity of existing buildings on the site. In insertion, seeking to more clearly define those qualities that contribute particular, consideration should be given to the overall building footprint, form, mass, scale, to the character or ‘sense of place’ proportions, its relationship to the street and its overall contribution to the character of St within the Saint Heliers precinct. Heliers.

b. Detailed design features should be compatible with key architectural features of the existing building.

c. Materials and colours should be compatible with the existing building.

d. The design of verandahs should be compatible with the architectural form of existing or surrounding buildings.

New buildings: e. New buildings should respond to the elements that contribute to the character of St Heliers and have regard to:the contribution any existing building on the site previously made to contribute to the character of St Heliers as described in Appendix 11.2.1 St Heliers character statement where the site is located and respond to the features of Page 8 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013) the surrounding context including: topography, streetscape character and the existing or original street subdivision pattern the existing or original street subdivision pattern and the extent to which buildings are articulated to avoid potential adverse effects of scale and bulk. Comment [T24]: Out of scope insertion, seeking to more clearly f. The visual interest at street level should be maintained in order to enhance the pedestrian define those qualities that contribute amenity of the street environment. Buildings should be designed to front streets, to the character or ‘sense of place’ within the Saint Heliers precinct. concentrating main entrances and windows on frontages facing the street.

g. Where appropriate incorporate a recessed street frontage to create transition space for outdoor dining, seating, planting or other uses.

h. The scale of proposed building elements should be compatible with that of existing buildings in the vicinity. In particular, where a proposed building is higher than an existing adjoining building, to reduce the dominance of upper levels consideration should be given to differentiating upper storeys from lower storeys. For example, this can be achieved by setback from the frontage, change of building form, change of building materials/colour, or by other appropriate design variation. Comment [T25]: Out of scope insertion, seeking to more clearly i.g. Roof design should maintain or contribute to the varied roofscape of the centre as viewed define those qualities that contribute from the surrounding residential area. to the character or ‘sense of place’ within the Saint Heliers precinct.

j.h. Rooftop projections including towers, chimneys, lift towers, machinery rooms, air conditioning equipment, ventilation ducts and equipment, or water towers should be integrated in an architecturally attractive manner as part of the overall design of the building.

k.i. In the case of Polygon Road and Turua Street, buildings should address the topographical difference at the south•eastern end where these streets intersect. Buildings may sit higher at the Polygon Road level and follow a reducing height towards the north.

l. Site development should respond to features of the surrounding context including: topography, streetscape character, scale and pattern of the public/private interface. Comment [T26]: Out of scope insertion, seeking to more clearly m.j. On•site car parking and vehicle circulation areas should not visually dominate views of the define those qualities that contribute site from the surrounding public realm. to the character or ‘sense of place’ within the Saint Heliers precinct.

n.k. For development across two or more sites, including amalgamated sites: i. the clarity of the grid•like structure should be maintained or enhanced

ii. the number, variety, scale and quality of public spaces, such as streets, lanes, alleys, squares and/or parks, are maintained or enhanced

iii. pedestrian permeability and comfort should be maintained or enhanced.

o.l. Where, in In new development, including additions and alterations to existing buildings, height above where the frontage setback height specified in rule 3.1 should control is exceeded.:

i. buildings should be visually and physically differentiated from those parts of the building below the frontage height the lower levels generally at the 8.5m frontage. ii. buildings should address the spatial relationship of the built form to the street and have regard to the location and context of the site. iii. upper levels of the building should be set back from the street frontage and articulated to avoid dominance of the upper levels and to maintain the characteristic open aspect ratio of built form to the street. Page 9 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013) iv. the design of buildings should include a be of a visually 'light' appearance upper level structure which may involve a change of building materials and colour Comment [T27]: Out of scope insertion, seeking to more clearly define those qualities that contribute to the character or ‘sense of place’ within the Saint Heliers precinct.

Page 10 of 11

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

Page 11 of 11

ATTACHMENT C: PAUP PLANNING MAPS AS NOTIFIED

Map 1: PAUP Viewer: Aerial Photograph / Zoning layer at 50:50 ratio

The following overlays listed below and shown in Maps 2 and 3 apply to the Saint Heliers Precinct:

. Infrastructure: High Land Transport Route Noise

. Infrastructure: Designations – ID 1602, Council carpark, Designations, Auckland Transport

. Historic Heritage: Heritage Place [rcp/dp] – 1854, St Heliers Bay Library

. Historic Heritage: Heritage Extent of Place [rcp/dp] – 1854, St Heliers Bay Library

. Special Character: Pre-1944 Building Demolition Control

. Natural Resource: Natural hazards – Coastal Inundation – 1m sea level rise

. Natural Resource: Natural hazards – Coastal Inundation – 2m sea level rise

. Natural Heritage: Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas – T8, Rangitoto Island, Extent of Volcanic Viewshafts [rps]

. Natural Heritage: Viewshaft Contours [i]

Map 2: PAUP Viewer – zoning and overlays applying to the precinct

Map 3: PAUP Viewer – zoning and overlays applying to the precinct

ATTACHMENT D: AREA COVERED BY THE SAINT HELIERS VILLAGE CENTRE PLAN IN THE OPERATIVE DISTRICT PLAN

Image taken from the Auckland City Council ‘operative version’ of plan changes 145 and 145A to the Auckland City Operative District Plan (Isthmus 1999)

ATTACHMENT E: PROPOSED PRECINCT BOUNDARY

ATTACHMENT F: TRACK CHANGES TO THE SAINT HELIERS CHARACTER STATEMENT

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (notified 30 September 2013)

Appendix 11.2 Central Appendix 11.2.1 St Heliers

St Heliers character statement Comment [T1]: Scope 5649-7 - All

proposed changes based generally on the submission by Ancona Properties Limited. 1. St Heliers character overlay approach

The St Heliers Character Overlay utilises controls that seek to retain and enhance the character of St Heliers. Based on an understanding of the historic development and analysis of the urban character of St Heliers village, the elements which contribute to character of the different street environments have been identified.

Surviving early buildings in the centre are an important asset. Sympathetic development will provide a high quality, authentic identity by reinforcing the village's unique qualities in each of the character dimensions recognise the village’s special qualities. The intention is not to 'freeze' the built environment, but rather, having identified the features which give a particular character to ensure the distinctive character of the village is appropriately recognised. It is proposed that having defined the elements that give particular character to the area that change can be managed to protect the distinctive character of the village Innovative and congruent development likely to add to the attributes of St Heliers village will be encouraged under such a regime.

Traffic and Parking

Tamaki Drive is part of the scenic route that extends eastwards from Auckland's central business district. It is a popular tourist route and is used extensively by cyclists, joggers, roller•bladers and other recreational users. The demand for parking generally falls into three broad categories: residential, commuter and visitor (comprising shoppers, tourists, visiting business people etc). Each group has unique parking requirements. Consequently, traffic and parking conditions vary considerably throughout the year depending on the season, the time of day and weather conditions.

As with other traditional commercial areas throughout Auckland, much of St Heliers was developed before cars were widely used, so many established commercial premises do not provide on•site car parking. This places pressure on the available on•street parking. Feedback from the community indicates that parking is considered a problem in St Heliers, because most of the available parking spaces in the commercial area are often occupied. This inconvenience may deter shoppers and others from visiting the area and prevent local businesses from achieving their full potential. At times there is difficulty when delivery vehicles double•park to deliver goods and prevent vehicles from travelling freely through the village area. Pedestrian access to and around the village is currently functional with footpaths of reasonable width and condition. However, there is conflict between the location of pedestrian crossings on both Tamaki Drive and St Heliers Bay Road and vehicular traffic. Feedback from the community also raised concerns regarding the location of bus stops adjacent to café/restaurant establishments with outdoor dining. To address these concerns a parking plan is being developed for St Heliers. This will develop short and long term strategies to address the traffic and carparking concerns for St Heliers. The character overlay provides for an exemption from the required parking spaces in certain circumstances to retain and encourage the continuity of retail frontages.

Open Space

Open space is an important part of the fabric of St Heliers. It has many layers • parks, reserves, streets, beaches and trees. While these controls seek to maintain and enhance the character of St Heliers village,

it is acknowledged that the design and appearance of works within open space will affect its character. Therefore, the council will promote works within the open space, both adjacent to and within the character overlay area, that are sympathetic to the aim of the St Heliers local centre.

2. Description – Character Definition

History

Te Pani•o•Horoiwi (Achilles Point) and Karaka Bay are of historic significance to Auckland. The headland around the present Glover Park was fortified and formed part of a network of fortified pa that protected the navigable passages within the Hauraki Gulf. Karaka Bay was one of the locations around the country chosen for the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The first auction of large blocks of land from the recently surveyed Ngati Paoa Tamaki Block took place in 1842 and St Heliers began as a number of settler farms. In the early 1880s farmland was subdivided in order to develop a 'model' seaside suburb of Auckland. With the completion of the wharf in 1882 St Heliers was initially popular as a holiday destination. Improved bus services affected the ferry services profitability and contributed to the wharf being demolished in 1930. With the opening of Tamaki Drive in 1931 the rate of growth accelerated further, and the village centre provided most services, supplies and entertainment for the surrounding community.

The urban structure and street pattern of St Heliers was based on a planned seaside settlement which has resulted in the existing grid with streets running perpendicular to Tamaki Drive and the waterfront and is a distinctive feature of this centre. The centre retains a range of building types from different periods which provide evidence of the historic development of the centre and how it has changed over time.

Landscape

St Heliers Bay is the eastern•most bay of a repeated pattern of small beaches separated by headlands and cliffs, forming a scalloped profile along Tamaki Drive. The bay lies between the prominent Waitemata Sandstone cliffs at Ladies Bay to the east, and the headland to the west at Kohimarama. The town centre forms the seafront focus of St Heliers Bay and is orientated towards its coastal setting is at the seafront of St Heliers Bay and is orientated towards its beachfront setting. It is located on flat land set at the base of a small topographic amphitheatre, surrounded by residential development on the land sloping upwards to the south. The surrounding residential development has views of the village, the Waitemata Harbour and beyond. The large expanse of Vellenoweth Green, two large Moreton Bay Fig trees and the beach reserve along Tamaki Drive define the western entrance to the centre. Beyond Turua the land rises towards Achilles Point marking the eastern end of the centre.

Urban Structure

The urban structure of St Heliers is based on the intersection of Tamaki Drive and St Heliers Bay Road at the waterfront and the fact that only these two roads connect continuously with the centre's hinterland and Tamaki Drive. This explains has influenced the existing structure of primary and secondary commercial frontages and the present differentiation of character within St Heliers.

The grid street network in its amphitheatre setting, adjacent to a large open space and foreshore, defines the seaside village character of the town centre. The grid is modified and distorted inland as the topography becomes more elevated. Tamaki Drive stretches along the coastline, and the open space, harbour views form an important component of the character of the scenic entrance to the centre from the west. The retail commercial precinct has a suburban character and is a compact, mixed use, pedestrian orientated centre. There is a wide variety of commercial, retail, and restaurant/café premises as well as community facilities such as the St Heliers Community Library, the War Memorial Hall and police station. There is generally an

integrated relationship between the village centre and the residential neighbourhood and the village has developed as an integral feature of the area.

Streetscape

The streetscape is the public realm from which we experience the character and amenity of a place. It is considered that t There is generally a good relationship between the public and private realms on St Heliers Bay Road. Wwith adequate sidewalks footpaths and continuous building frontages where windows, doors and verandahs are orientated towards the sidewalk forming a continuous street wall. The public realm on adjacent streets contrasts with the core area due to the lack in places of a continuous frontage, and on the western edge, the presence of residential buildings and their vehicle crossings set back of residential buildings and increased vehicle crossings for residential uses. The public realm along Tamaki Drive is defined by the relationship between the urban and coastal edges of the street. The distinctive Moreton Bay fig trees, Vellenoweth Green and residential and commercial (including mixed use) development on the southern side of Tamaki Drive complement the seaside character along the water's edge. The point at which St Heliers Bay Road and Tamaki Drive intersect creates a focal point for the village.

Built Environment

St Heliers Bay Road and Tamaki Drive are streets characterised by continuity of retail frontages, while others are characterised by parts of the precinct have a greater mix of use and building typology. Both tThese areas combine in combination to establish the existing overall character of the centre, while each has different and distinctive character elements.

The built environment at St Heliers is characterised by has a diverse range of building types and styles. The initial pattern of commercial development has been was strongly influenced by the transport patterns to and from the bay methods and their infrastructure, in particular the sea access using the St Helier’s wharf. Early buildings (of which few remain in St Heliers) were of small•scale domestic type construction. The 1920's and 1930's established the a different pattern of development and architectural form and it is this basic configuration that remains today, although some key buildings have been demolished and others altered. The scale of these buildings is generally small, with one or two storeyed buildings on smaller lots. A few taller buildings exist, which are noticeably higher than the predominantly one and two storey buildings. Some of the single storey buildings have feature parapets that strengthen the streets vertical element. Where larger development has occurred in the 1920's and 1930's the facades have been articulated to give the appearance of individual smaller scale buildings. The majority of older buildings have pitched roofs and this contributes to the character of the built environment, especially when viewed from the surrounding residential properties. The character and scale of the surviving those early buildings helped to establish a seaside and village character that is a primary asset of St Heliers.

The seaside location and lifestyle has resulted in an overall built pattern that connects the public and private realms. An important built feature is the way public streets and private development meet at the common boundary to create "in•between" spaces, such as porches, verandahs, terraces and courtyards that support the seaside lifestyle.