BEFORE THE 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 the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP ), Topic 081 – Precincts

______STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF SALLY BARBARA PEAKE (LANDSCAPE – PRECINCTS TOPIC 081) ON BEHALF SAVE OUR ST HELIERS (SOS) INC AND ST HELIERS / GLENDOWIE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC

10 FEBRUARY 2016 ______

Introduction 1 My full name is Sally Barbara Peake. I am a landscape architect in private practice, and a Principal of Peake Design Limited. I have over 30 years experience in design, assessment, and preparation of landscape analysis and development projects. I have qualifications in landscape architecture (Diploma in Landscape Architecture from Leeds, UK) and urban design (Diploma in Urban Design from Oxford, UK), and a Master of Architecture degree from Unitec, NZ.

2 I am a Fellow and Registered landscape architect with the Institute of Landscape Architects, and immediate past -president of the institute. I am also a member of the Resource Management Law Association and Urban Design Forum (Auckland).

3 I am a former panellist on the Urban Design Panel, and have represented the NZILA on a number of external advisory groups for the Auckland Plan and Proposed Unitary Plan.

4 This statement is prepared in support of the Save Our St Heliers (SOS) and St Heliers/ Glendowie Residents’ Association proposed Business Special Character overlay in lieu of the Precinct overlay proposed by the PAUP.

5 The statement is supplementary to my evidence provided to accompany the submission, dated 26 th February 2014. I adopt that evidence for this hearing and append it.

6 In particular, this statement of evidence provides additional evidence with regard to the urban design and landscape effects of the proposed changes following the preparation of ’s evidence (Topics 080 and 081).

7 I am also aware that submissions were made by SOS and St Heliers/ Glendowie Residents’ Association in relation to (Topic 029) and Special Character and Pre-1944 Mapping (Topic 079) and I note that there is some overlap between these topics and Topics 080/081.

8 Background and summary

9 The original submission and urban design evidence sought that a Special Character overlay be applied to St Heliers Centre to afford more appropriate protection of its special character (compared with a Precinct overlay).

10 Key urban design issues (attributes) identified by SOS and the Residents’ Association and covered by the evidence are: • The importance of the centre as an historic seaside village (together with its relationship with Tamaki Drive) • Its importance as a local retail and community centre (in contrast to Mission Bay) • The retention of the form, character and heritage of the centre as an expression of community values

11 The evidence notes that the Auckland Plan and Local Plan seek to support centres as an expression of community values and maintaining local character. Supporting documents that set out and reinforce community values and local character include the Tamaki Drive Masterplan and Scenic Way heritage protection, St Heliers Village Centre Plan, and St Heliers Character/Heritage Study.

12 The evidence summarises the key urban design attributes and features with regard to these documents.

13 The spatial extent of the centre and precinct is very small (refer to figure 1 below), although a larger area is identified as a “zone of influence” (refer to figure 2) in my evidence, which recognises the importance of Tamaki Drive and Vellenoweth Green as well as some residential areas in relation to the centre and its character.

Figure 1 Plan of Local Centre zone and Precinct overlay

Figure 2 Proposed Special Character overlay and “zone of influence”

14 Consequently, limitations on development within this area would not adversely affect the overall aims of achieving intensification or a compact city. In contrast, it will promote a “quality” compact city.

15 The evidence also includes a discussion on the difference between historic heritage and heritage character, although I note that this has been subsequently covered in Panel Hearings and interim guidance issued by the Independent Hearings Panel (further discussed below).

16 The evidence also notes that St Heliers is the only one of the seven studies undertaken at the time not covered by a Business Special Character overlay, and concludes that the decision to make it a Precinct is not consistent with the St Heliers Character Statement and will result in adverse effects on its character and amenity, with respect to: • Proposed height • Proposed setback • Non- commercial development • Parking

17 I note, however, that the nature and magnitude of these effects varies within the centre, which is discussed later in my evidence.

18 I have reviewed the evidence of Mr Duguid, Mr Maxwell, Ms Mein and Mr Riley, and find no evidence that changes my view that the Special Character overlay is the most appropriate method to protect the special character values of St Heliers local centre.

19 Consequently, I do not support the proposed St Heliers Precinct changes and consider the single objective and two policies are completely inadequate to meet the purpose of the precinct. In addition, the development controls will enable a distinctly different character that fails to recognise or protect the heritage, special character and amenity of the environment and accordingly does not promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Assessment context 20 For the purposes of this assessment, the centre and proposed overlay is evaluated with regard to the existing environment and its urban design context.

21 Urban design is defined in the NZ Urban Design Protocol as follows: “Urban design is concerned with the design of the buildings, places, spaces and networks that make up our towns and cities, and the ways people use them. It ranges in scale from a metropolitan region, city or town down to a street, public space or even a single building. Urban design is concerned not just with appearances and built form but with the environmental, economic, social and cultural consequences of design. It is an approach that draws together many different sectors and professions, and it includes both the process of decision-making as well as the outcomes of design.”

22 From my reading of the evidence of Mr Duguid, Mr Matthews and Ms Mein (Topic 079), the Precinct overlay was essentially created as a result of legacy plan changes and Environment Court Decisions.

23 I also understand from legal counsel that Council may have erred when it decided that the Environment Court determined that St Heliers is not a special character area.

24 Although I was not involved in the previous case concerning Ancona properties and proposed redevelopment of Turua Street, I am aware that discussions largely centred on whether the existing 7 buildings on Turua Street had historic heritage significance. I am also aware that the majority of the buildings were all identified as ‘character-defining’ within the Operative St Heliers Centre Plan and the proposed development included the removal of two significant street trees (as well as other lesser trees). Council’s specialist urban designer was opposed to the demolition, stating that “the demolition.... is likely to cause adverse effects on the social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of St Heliers” and result “in a high level of visual and contextual change that is of major concern from an urban design perspective.”1

25 I also note that it appears that the difference between historic heritage and special character was not sufficiently addressed at that time and continues to be a challenging issue.

26 I note, for example, in paragraph 1.2 of Mr Matthews evidence he states “The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) heard evidence from Auckland Council’s (Council) witnesses in November 2014 in relation to Topic 005 (RPS Issues) that proposed the term ‘special character’ be removed and the term ‘historic character’ be used to describe those areas whose character is primarily derived from historic values.”

27 While I agree that ‘historic character’ should be used for “areas whose character is primarily derived from historic values”, I do not consider the terms special character and historic character interchangeable and am concerned that some areas formerly identified

1 Request for urban design advice, Auckland City Environments, 24.11.08, 8-20 Turua Street, St Heliers – LUC 2007-511501, Nicola Williams

as ‘Special Character’ have either been omitted because they do not meet the new ‘historic character ’ criteria or have been incorrectly renamed.

28 From my investigations, I consider St Heliers meets the criteria for Special Character because: • It is a place that retains and displays the characteristics of a particular era of human settlement and development 2; • It contributes to an understanding and appreciation of an area’s history and culture 3; • It demonstrates a measure of coherence based on a range of historic and physical qualities that contribute to an understanding of Auckland’s historic development 4; • It has a distinctive style or mix of styles and building types that reflect the development of an area 5; • It has a distinctive pattern of subdivision lot sizes, and street and road patterns 6; • It has a relationship of built form and natural landscapes to landscape context 7; • It has streetscape cohesiveness 8.

29 I also note that Ms Mein in her evidence states that historic heritage encompasses values that manage change and give effect to section 7 of the RMA as well as section 6(f), while Mr Matthews make a series of statements in relation to Eden Valley, Ponsonby and Upper Symonds Street that reinforce the interconnectedness of buildings to streetscape, the importance of building height in maintaining character, the potential

2 Para. 7.1 STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF ANTONY JAMES MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE - SPECIAL CHARACTER) 3 Ibid 4 Para. 7.1 STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF ANTONY JAMES MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE - SPECIAL CHARACTER) 5 Para.s 7.2, 1.11 STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF ANTONY JAMES MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE - SPECIAL CHARACTER) 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Ibid for intensification to result in loss of recognised character and historic relationship, and the fact that individual scheduling (of buildings) does not manage collective values. 9

30 With regards to retaining Upper Symonds Street as a historic character area, he states: “I support this approach because the identification of the area was based on the Character and Heritage Study prepared by Boffa Miskell et al, and assessment using Auckland City Council’s methodology at the time for character heritage overlays.” (This also applies to St Heliers.) And, paragraph 10.1 “As noted in my evidence for Topic 029, seven town centre historic character areas (Upper Symonds Street, West Lynn, Grey Lynn, Kingsland, Eden Valley, Mt Eden and Ellerslie) were added to the Isthmus Section of the Auckland District Plan through plan change 132 to the Auckland City Council Isthmus District Plan and notified in 2004. These business areas were identified for their collective heritage and character values (historic values, built / physical and visual qualities).”

31 Notwithstanding the above, I acknowledge that there is variation within the centre and not all the criteria apply throughout the centre. This is illustrated in the St Heliers Heritage Analysis appended to my evidence. (Refer also to my original evidence appended and the discussion on special character attributes.)

32 I also note that special character attributes are related to the coastal location of the centre and its relationship with the (with respect to sections 8b – f of the Act.)

Special Character and Precinct provisions 33 Ms Mein discusses the SOS and Residents’ Association submission in her evidence (paragraph 8.22-8.26), although no mention is made of my evidence, which differs in some detailed respects.

34 She notes that St Heliers has recognised character owing to its history, seaside location and the presence of a small collection of pre-1944 buildings within and surrounding the local centre and one scheduled historic heritage place (St Heliers library).

9 Ms Mein, para.s 1.9, 1.11 ATTACHMENT B: SECTION 32AA EVALUATION REPORT; Mr Matthews para.s 10.4, 10.5, 10.29 STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF ANTONY JAMES MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL (HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE - SPECIAL CHARACTER)

35 She also notes that a centre plan was prepared for St Heliers, in 2006, and made operative via Plan Change 145 (and subsequently Plan Change 145a). She states: “This plan change sought to maintain and enhance the distinctiveness of St Heliers. Among other things it identified character buildings and established controls to manage development and maintain and enhance pedestrian amenity.”

36 However, she then states: “in recent years St Heliers has been the subject of considerable change and redevelopment that has altered the built form and architectural character of the place. I note this is one of the concerns of the submitters.” There is also an inference that this change has eroded the character and amenity of the centre such that a precinct overlay is now appropriate.

37 I disagree. While recent changes in St Heliers have seen the demolition of important buildings and replacement with new buildings that arguably do not respond to the special character and amenity of the place and its context, the importance of the centre in the development of this part of Auckland, and its relative intactness as a local retail and community centre together with its mix of building ages and styles, means that it retains special urban design qualities and values that ought to be protected.

38 It is my opinion that the provisions of the precinct overlay are inadequate to protect these qualities and values, and I disagree that the key area of difference between the overlays relates to demolition. The key area of difference in my view is the explicit recognition of those values and physical attributes to be maintained and enhanced (in the extensive objectives and policies of the special character overlay) compared with the brief and weak amenity provisions of the precinct objective and policies.

39 Mr Riley in his evidence (Topic 081e) 10 specifically addresses the provisions of St Heliers Precinct and clearly recognises the inherent problems with the Precinct overlay, where there is no explanation of what character is required to be maintained and enhanced, and where the policies and rules do not support the purpose of the precinct.

40 I therefore agree with Mr Riley where he states: • the notified policies are broad in their language and do not describe the specific aspects of St Heliers’ built form that contribute to its sense of place.

10 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MATTHEW JAMES RILEY ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL ON SAINTHELIERS PRECINCT URBAN DESIGN • I support the view of submitters ( including SOS and the Residents’ Association) that the precinct would benefit from a more accurate description within the policies of the centre’s key sense of place elements. • the two key elements of the precinct, other than its seaside location and block structure, are: - the predominant one to two storey height of buildings within the commercial core - the relative continuity of retail frontages, achieved by an absence of vehicle crossings, car parking and loading spaces on retail streets. • 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 mid-point of a bay and conducive to a perception of buildings nestled within their coastal landscape. • I consider that an increase in height within the precinct to the 18m permitted within the underlying Local Cente 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.

41 If the Precinct provisions are retained, I support the specific proposed amendments to the rules indicated in paragraph 40 above relating to the frontage set back rule and maximum height, access and carparking, and buildings fronting the street.

42 However, it is my opinion that ‘tweaking’ the precinct provisions will not fully achieve the stated purpose, and while I support the inclusion of clarifying information from the St Heliers Centre Plan, I consider the direction provided by the Special Character policies is necessary.

43 In particular, I consider the frontage setback control will not contribute or protect the sense of place elements and the height differential described in paragraph 39, and is a control more suited to larger centres. While I agree that the 12.5m height could be accommodated in some parts of the centre it is my opinion that this would need to be supported by robust analysis, and while the assessment criteria go some way to encourage this, the overall emphasis is on reducing visual dominance rather than requiring the building to make a contribution to the qualities and character of the existing centre/streetscape.

44 In this regard I do not agree with Mr Riley where he states that 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 (paragraph 6.10). Given the long (and elevated) views available and the importance of these views in retaining sense of place character, the minimal set back will not retain the impression of one to two storey buildings and has the potential to irrevocably alter the shape and character of the centre.

45 I also note there is a contradiction where Mr Riley proposes introducing a control requiring new buildings to be built directly to their street frontage. Under the assessment criteria (5.2.1g) it states: “Where appropriate incorporate a recessed street frontage to create transition space for outdoor dining, seating, planting or other uses”. This is a clear indication of how the precinct provisions could change the character and role of St Heliers (replicating Mission Bay).

46 I agree in principle with Mr Riley regarding his comments and recommendation relating to the Mixed Housing Urban zoned properties within the block to the west of the commercial core (bordered by Maheke Street, Polygon Road, Goldie Street and Tamaki Drive, and to the east of the commerical core in lots fronting Lombard Street).

47 However, it will be important for new buildings in this block to be designed to respect the character of the business area. I have noted (and Mr Riley has confirmed) that there is a wider area of influence that makes a contribution to its sense of place, and the relationship of the centre to Vellenoweth Green should be recognised. (Refer to Figure 2 for my proposed boundary.)

Response to evidence of Mr Cooper 48 By way of conclusion, I make the following comments in relation to the evidence of Mr Cooper 11 .

49 In paragraphs 7.3 and 13.1 he states that the St 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 Centre Plan (Auckland City Council plan

11 Topic 081e EVIDENCE REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS BY ROSS EDWARD COOPER FOR SAINT HELIERS PRECINCT PLANNING modifications 145 and subsequently 145A). It would seem that this decision is the sole reason why the more appropriate Special Character provisions are not proposed.

50 In paragraphs 14.7-14.12 Mr Cooper confirms that there is an identifiable seaside village ‘sense of place’ present within the Saint Heliers local centre that warrants protection and enhancement, but notes that Saint Heliers is not subject to the Council's Historic Character overlay, and the Pre-1944 BDC is proposed to be uplifted. On this basis he considers “that the amenity values and seaside character of the Saint Heliers Village [may] be managed through a precinct”.

51 No discussion or evidence is given for St Heliers not being subject to a Historic Character overlay, despite that fact that the centre (like Upper Queen Street and other local centres) was the subject of a Character and Heritage Study. In this regard I note that the St Heliers Character Study identified it as appropriate for a character / heritage overlay “to address the relationship between the village’s character and heritage elements that are collectively important to its identity and distinctiveness” 12 .

52 While I note, with reference to Mr Cooper’s evidence in paragraphs 4.14-4.17 that Council proposes to remove the Pre-1944 Demolition Control overlay from all sites within the precinct, this does not in my view support either the values of the centre or the Character and Heritage Study. As stated earlier in my evidence, I am concerned that there remains an apparent confusion between historic heritage and historic / heritage character.

53 This is evident in paragraph 14.23 b where Mr Cooper states: “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.”

54 Consequently I disagree with this approach and am of the opinion that the character of the centre is partly derived from the distinctive mix of (different age and style) buildings, and that the wholesale removal of large chunks of the centre (as has already occurred) would result in significant adverse effects on its character and amenity. I therefore

12 St Heliers Character/Heritage Study, section 7.1 disagree with his statement that: “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.”

55 Finally, with regard to paragraphs 14.45 – 14.47 of Mr Cooper’s evidence, I support SOS and the Residents Association’s concerns regarding retaining the centre as a local retail and community centre, and consider that this is an urban design matter that requires attention. While I agree that the underlying zone is the correct place for activity provisions, maintaining a range of building and lot sizes and encouraging building retention and adaption will help to retain and realise a vibrant local centre. It is for this reason that I consider it important that the character and values of the centre are recognised and appropriately provided for.

56 I do not support the proposed St Heliers Precinct changes and consider the single objective and two policies are completely inadequate to meet the purpose of the precinct. In addition, the development controls will enable a distinctly different character that fails to recognise or protect the heritage, special character and amenity of the environment and accordingly does not promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Sally Peake Registered FNZILA landscape architect