Comment on Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village
Application name Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village
EPA reference FTC000024
Applicant Ryman Healthcare Limited
Comments due by 6 April 2021
Prepared by: Kohi Neighbours Incorporated
6 April 2021
1 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Abstract
The Kohimarama Comprehensive Care Retirement Village is a Referred Project under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. The applicant is Ryman Healthcare. This submission is in response to an Invitation to Comment received by Kohi Neighbours Incorporated from the Chair of the Expert Consent Panel for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
Submitted this 6th day of April, 2021 on behalf of Kohi Neighbours Incorporated
______
Jeff Robertson Nik Nigro
Chair Deputy Chair
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated
2 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Contents:
1. Introduction
1.1. Kohi Neighbours Incorporated
1.2. Scope of Submission
1.3. Engaged Experts
1.4. Executive Summary
2. History, Documentation and Process
2.1. Introduction
2.2. History of the Site
2.3. CANENZ
2.4. Decision on AUP Rezoning Request
2.5. Limited Notification and Consultation
2.6. Errors in the Application
2.7. Omissions in the Application
2.8. Fast Track Consenting Process
3. Legal Submission
4. Comment on Urban Design, Planning and Landscape
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Urban Design and Landscape Assessment
4.3. Planning Report
4.4. Riparian Yard Controls
5. Comment on Architectural Design and Layout
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Site Layout and Circulation
5.3. Architectural Design
5.4. Doing it Right
3 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
6. Comment on Traffic and Parking
6.1. Introduction
6.2. Restrictions for School Peak Hours
6.3. Kohimarama Road Entrance – No Right Turn Out
6.4. Kohimarama Road Entrance – No Right Turn In
6.5. John Rymer Place Traffic Lights – Right Turn Arrow
6.6. Parking Restrictions – Offsite
6.7. Parking Management – Onsite
6.8. Access Design
6.9. Other Traffic Restrictions
7. Comment on Environment and Ecology
7.1. Introductions
7.2. Removal of Vegetation and Replanting
7.3. Light Pollution
7.4. Noise
7.5. Bird Habitat
8. Comment on Construction Activities
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Noise Standard
8.3. Work Hours and Restrictions
8.4. Noise Exceedances
8.5. Acoustic Barriers
8.6. Vibration
8.7. Noise Generating Equipment
8.8. Noise and Vibration Monitoring
8.9. Earthworks
8.10. Planting
4 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
8.11. Dust
8.12. Light Pollution
8.13. Containment of Activities
8.14. Consultation
9. Comment on Construction Traffic
9.1. Introduction
9.2. General Access Restrictions
9.3. Site Access for Worker Vehicles
9.4. Site Access for Standard Trucks
9.5. Site Access for Heavy Vehicles
9.6. Site Access for Concrete Trucks
9.7. Oversized Loads
9.8. Staging of Trucks
9.9. Temporary Traffic Management
9.10. Parking Restrictions – Offsite
9.11. Parking Management
9.12. Allum Street
9.13. Track-out of Dust and Dirt
9.14. Condition Assessment of Roads
9.15. Enforcement
9.16. Partial Occupancy During Construction
10. Summary and Conclusion
10.1. Summary
10.2. Conclusion
5 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Appendices
A. Kohi Neighbours Incorporated Member Addresses
B. Site Concept Plan 2008
C. Legal Submission on Behalf of Auckland Council – Rezoning, 12 February 2016 (part only)
D. S92 Further Information Request, Auckland Council, 24 November 2020
E. Legal Submissions by MinterEllisonRuddWatts
F. Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Assessment by Richard Reid & Associates
G. Planning Report by Civitas Planning Consultants
H. Environmental Gerontology Assessment – Lori Nielson
I. Eastern Bays Songbird Project Submission
J. Submission from St Thomas's School Board of Trustees
6 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
1. Introduction
1.1 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated
Kohi Neighbours group was established in September 2020 following publication of the details of Ryman Healthcare's proposed development for a Comprehensive Retirement Village at 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place. It began as a loose-knit group of local residents desperate to have a forum to discuss their concerns about the development, and eager to engage with the community to find common ground around the issues that the development presented.
Auckland Council called for submissions under a Limited Notification process, with submissions due 15 October 2020. Following this, and with a hearing scheduled for 15-18 December 2020, it was decided by the resident group to pool resources and work together to obtain professional representation for the hearing. Kohi Neighbours became an Incorporated Society on 11 December 2020 (NZ Incorporated Societies Number 50055190). The primary purpose of the Society as described in its Constitution is to:
Represent neighbours and community members impacted by the proposed Ryman Healthcare development of 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place.
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated (KNI) has maintained close links with the Mission Bay Kohimarama Residents Association (MBKRA) and has received support and advice from the Association. Due to the lead taken by KNI within the community, MBKRA has opted to play a supporting role whilst maintaining an interest in the process.
Today, KNI has members from more than 60 addresses in the immediate community, and has received financial support from over 35 separate households. A list of member addresses is included in Appendix A. Our members reside both within the "invited" catchment of addresses and also in the surrounding neighbourhood. Our membership includes lawyers, architects, construction professionals, gerontologists, engineers, parents, grandparents, and other people passionate about the outcomes of the Ryman application. This submission has been created with their input.
7 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
1.2 Scope of Submission
KNI has undertaken significant outreach within the community, via emails, letterbox drops, public meetings, presentations and discussions, in order to share information and understand the key concerns from our community members. Our intent is not to speak for each of our members, but to represent a general view of the issues. We have encouraged all persons invited by the EPA Expert Consenting Panel to make individual submissions based on their particular assessment of issues specific to their location.
We therefore do not provide comment on every aspect of the development. This is not to say we do not put weight on the importance of these issues. We are satisfied that the following areas either require a high level of technical expertise and that the process of review and monitoring already underway is sufficient, or will be covered by residents in their individual submissions:
Ground contamination
Geotechnical
Stormwater, sewer and utilities
Water bore and groundwater extraction
Stream ecology
Archaeology
The main focus of our community, and the topics we will provide comment on are in regards to the following:
Urban Design, Planning and Landscape
Architectural Design
Traffic and Parking
Environment and Ecology
Construction Activities
Construction Traffic
8 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Under each of these topics we have provided analysis of the application and relevant reports, highlighting the issues important to the community. We have identified acceptable mitigations, or suggested conditions of consent should development proceed in any form. We wish to review and comment on any conditions being considered by the Panel if it intends to grant consent.
1.3 Engaged Experts
The Kohi Neighbours Incorporated Society is represented by MinterEllisonRuddWatts, and has engaged the following experts:
Richard Reid, Richard Reid & Associates – Urban Design, Landscape and Architecture; and
Iain McManus, Civitas – Planning
We have also incorporated an Environmental Gerontology assessment by Lori Nielson, a specialist in this field and a resident of John Rymer Place.
Refer to the listed appendices for submissions from these experts.
1.4 Executive Summary
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated has a strong member representation within the community surrounding the proposed Ryman development. The general comments and recommendations are:
Development of the site is supported. A retirement village is an acceptable use of the site.
The proposed buildings breach the Auckland Unitary Plan height standards to an unacceptable extent. The development results in a high level of visual dominance over many neighbouring properties, and at least a moderate impact on the wider community. The development does not suit the planned character of the area and presents as a wall of high-density development in a residential zone. Height reductions are required.
9 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
The design of the development, including layout and form, impacts visual amenity for surrounding residents. Shadowing of adjacent properties, as well as shading within the site, is a major concern. Fundamental design issues prevent this from being a well-functioning environment for residents of the village. Amendments to the design are required.
Screening of retaining walls and buildings by trees and planting will only be partially effective and will take time to establish. Design amendments and/or conditions of consent are required.
Traffic associated with the retirement village, and in particular the planning of vehicle movements around entrances/exits requires further review and modification.
Environmental concerns exist around reduction in vegetation, impact on birdlife, light and noise pollution. Specific mitigations and conditions are necessary.
Construction will be underway for at least 3-3½ years and as such all impacts from construction are more significant than a standard project. Changes to the proposed work hours and other aspects of the work are required. Conditions regarding construction activities are proposed.
Construction traffic and parking are significant concerns for the wider community. Conditions are proposed.
Unless changes to the overall design of the buildings are made then Kohi Neighbours Incorporated strongly urges the Expert Consenting Panel to decline the application for consent.
If the development progresses in any form, a number of conditions are recommended to mitigate the impacts on local residents and the community.
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated wishes to be provided draft conditions for review, and to speak at a hearing if the Expert Consenting Pane elect to hold one.
10 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
2. History, Documentation and Process
2.1 Introduction
The following documents have been reviewed relevant to this section of the submission:
Appendix U, Archaeological Assessment by Clough & Associates, August 2019
Assessment of Environmental Effects, Ryman Healthcare, April 2020
Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects by Ryman Healthcare, February 2021.
Notification Report by Sandy Hsiao, Senior Planner, Auckland Council 1 September 2020.
Notification Decision by Barry Kaye, Duty Commissioner, 10 September 2020
2.2 History of the Site
The modern history of the site at 223 Kohimarama Road begins with ownership by St John's College Trust Board (Clough, p 6). The site was gifted as part of a larger parcel for the purpose of established Selwyn College in the 1950's, but building was focused on the flat section of land to the northwest. In the 1960's a section of land on the site was levelled for a hockey field, but this became disused well prior to the mid-1990's when John Rymer Place was created and development to the south of the site commenced. This subdivision created 7 John Rymer Place, which eventually became associated with the larger plot as a potential secondary access point. The land has sat vacant as an open green space for at least the last 30 years, enjoyed by the community for its visual amenity and for walking through to Kepa Bush Reserve. (Figures 1 & 2)
11 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Figure 1: 223 Kohimarama Road viewed from between the existing Pohutukawa Trees on the street frontage.
Figure 2: Kepa Bush Reserve accessed to the west of the site.
12 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
In June 1998 the Selwyn College Board of Trustees formally approached the Ministry of Education to dispose of the land as they declared that it was excess to their needsi. A transfer was completed in April 2000 to enable an eventual commercial saleii.
The land was zoned "Special Purpose Activity Zone 2" under the City of Auckland District Plan Isthmus Section operative 1999, i.e. "educational use"iii. The maximum building height permitted was 10m.
In 2005 the government agreed to sell the land to Ngati Whatua o Orakei under its Deed of Settlement with the Crowniv. A valuation report by Colliers International in 2006 put the land value at $5.5M. The valuation report assumed that the land would be rezoned to Residential 6A (the same as 7 John Rymer Place), with potential for 46 lots. Residential 6A had an 8m height limit.
In July 2006 the sale was agreed at a price of $4.7Mv.
Upon purchase of the land, Ngati Whatua o Orakei immediately sold a 150-year lease to a private development company, Education Holdings Ltdvi. Education Holdings submitted a Private Plan Change Request (No. 219) in November 2007, to change the zoning to "Special Purpose Activity Zone 1", i.e. "healthcare, including housing for the elderly with care facilities". Part of Private Plan Change 219 was a proposed Site Specific Concept Plan identifying height zones across the site.
2.3 CANENZ
With notification of the Private Plan Change request in April 2007, a group of residents in John Rymer Place formed a community action group called the Association to Conserve and Nurture Education Zones, Inc. (CANENZ). CANENZ spread word throughout the community and rallied neighbours to make their voices heard. Their aim was to limit the impact of development on the neighbourhood to what was approximately equivalent to the previously consented use.
Two important arguments were noted:
1. A covenant existed on the title of 7 John Rymer Place that the land could not be used for commercial or trading purposes. John Rymer Place was envisaged as a quiet
13 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
residential cul-de-sac of quality homes. Using this land to access a commercially operated retirement village was a violation of the covenant.
2. That the land of 223 Kohimarama Place was gifted "for educational purposes". The sale and rezoning of the land was contrary to the spirit of the gift.
As part of the rezoning process, Council received 215 initial submissions from community members, and 936 further submissionsvii.
The main themes highlighted in the submissions were:
Height
Dominance
Shadowing
Privacy
Visual effects
Out of character
Loss of amenity
Density
Traffic
Pedestrian and child safety
Ecological
Noise
Chow Hill Architects, working for Education Holdings, prepared a series of possible site layouts for 200 2-bedroom units across the siteviii. Along the north-western (Selwyn) boundary these rose above the existing grade by only one storey. The buildings stepped up gradually away from the southern boundary.
Following negotiation between Council, Education Holdings and CANENZ, and a hearing in December 2008, a final Site Concept Plan was agreed toix. This provided for three height
14 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
zones through the site. Notably an 8m wide setback on the south and north-eastern boundaries, then a 12m wide zone with 2-storey 6m height limit, a 3-storey 20m wide zone with an 11m height limit, then a 4-storey 15m height limit on the remaining site, with a 3m setback against the Selwyn boundary. The maximum number of units was 200. Refer Appendix B.
Following this decision, the Global Financial Crisis impacted any plans to move forward with development.
A sale was recorded in 2015.
The most recent sale according to public records is 21 September 2018, for $29.5M. Ryman now holds the 150-year lease with rights of renewal.
2.4 Decision on AUP Rezoning Request
On 12 February 2016, Auckland Council made a legal submission to address submissions in relation to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) following notification of it by Council. Refer Appendix C.
One of the submissions addressed was a request by Rainbow Holdings Limited to zone the land of 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place as Terrace Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) zone in lieu of the proposed Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone. Counsel for Auckland Council writes (p 9):
"1.25 The Council does not support the rezoning of land at 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place, Kohimarama in correctly zones [sic] School to THAB. While these sites were incorrectly zones [sic] School zone, the Council considers that the appropriate underlying zoning for these sites is MHU zone."
And summarises (p 91):
"28.32 … taking into account the existing environment and site characteristics, [Mr Bruce Young] considers that the MHU zone is the appropriate residential zone for this site rather than the THAB zone."
Another submission requested land forming St Johns Theological College be zoned THAB, and adjacent land, i.e. the site of Summerset's St Johns retirement village now under
15 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
construction, to be zoned MHU in lieu of proposed Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS) zone across the whole site. This was also turned down by Council.
The legal submission demonstrates a thorough review of these submissions, and the conclusions reached are purposeful in their intent. They reinforce the desired outcome related to town centres having higher density and height allowance, with a decreasing density away from these centres. The creation of "spot zones" by allowing an isolated increase in density on a site is considered as not meeting the criteria for Council's strategic zoning distribution. Consideration has been given to surrounding residential character of the neighbourhood.
In November 2016 the Auckland Unitary Plan became Operative in Part.
2.5 Limited Notification and Consultation
In Ryman's application to Auckland Council for Resource Consent under the RMA, it identified 12 properties as experiencing adverse effects to a minor or more than minor extent (AEE April 2020 p 91), concluding no other persons are considered to be affected to a minor or more than minor degree.
Council's Senior Planner notes that the landscape/visual effects "is the largest area of disagreement between Council and the Applicant's specialists" (Notification Report p 16) with reference to the assessment done by Council's landscape architect, Ainsley Verstraeten, who considered at least minor visual amenity effects would be experienced by persons on the majority of John Rymer Place and also the northern properties of Whytehead Crescent and Harvey Place.
It is noted that neither the applicant's landscape architect, nor the Council's landscape specialist, visited any properties surrounding the site.
Sandy Hsiao notes (Notification Report, p 19):
"I agree with Ms Verstraeten that without visiting individual properties nearby (which is impractical in this instance, and an exercise that the applicant has also not attempted to undertake), it is not possible to properly understand the level of visual effect from each property, as this would depend on where key outlooks are located, how high/how many storeys the dwelling is in relation to the subject site, where the
16 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
outdoor living spaces are etc. Given the proposed height of the buildings, the elevated position of sites and their distance to the subject site, this has the potential to have at least minor visual dominance on persons at those properties where there is likely to be clear views of the development/ at least moderate visual change experienced."
The Orakei Local Board notes "there are many more stakeholders in John Rymer Place, Kohimarama Road and the neighbouring school/other residents – who would request public notification to voice their views" (Notification Report p 5).
Based on the Notification Report, and with further consideration for properties in close proximity to the site, Auckland Council proceeded with limited notification, to 100 properties (Notification Decision, p 6).
Even following this notification process and review of submissions received by Council, the applicants landscape specialist has reduced their assessment of impacted properties in the AEE prepared for the EPA, and states that only 9 properties experience "low visual effects" (AEE 7.6.2.2 p 82).
Through engagement by Kohi Neighbours Incorporated, it has become evident that many residents in the wider context of the site feel strongly about the development due to their direct views onto the site (particularly from the south side of Whytehead Crescent), or the impact of traffic (with residents opposite the site on Kohimarama Road and Allum street, and residents at the far end of John Rymer Place expressing concern).
KNI was pleased to see the EPA Expert Consenting Panel increased the catchment of properties from those identified by Council, and invited additional owners and occupiers to comment on the application. However, it is the Society's view that there are further residents and community groups impacted that have not been considered.
This submission by KNI attempts to incorporate concerns of these persons in addition to those identified through the notification / invitation process.
KNI believes the process highlights several key points:
That Ryman's experts made no effort to visit or consult with neighbours.
That Ryman's experts have not made assessments relative to the viewpoints of properties around the site.
17 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
That Ryman's experts' evidence is inadequate due to its incomplete assessment of impacts.
That Ryman and its experts have not fully assessed the impact of the development. Their assessment of impacted properties raises doubts about the adequacy of their assessments and claims within their expert reports.
Several members from KNI attended a "public open day" held by Ryman prior to the deadline for Council submissions. All of those members attest to the fact this was not "consultation" with the public, but rather "presentation" of the development. There have been no design changes made since this time. Several members have tried to engage with Ryman regarding the application and have been met with obstinance.
2.6 Errors in the Application
We note several errors and inconsistencies within the application. It is surprising that these have not been picked up and corrected by the applicant or it's experts during their reviews.
These errors create confusion about what is being proposed, meaning that persons commenting on the application and the Panel reviewing the application cannot be fully clear of what the actual intent of the application is. A selection of these errors are listed below:
1. Floor plans for building B01 as shown on the site plans 044-RCT-S01-A0-020 through 004-RCT-S01-A0-100 do not match floor plans 044-RCT-B01-A1-010 through 044-RCT-B01-A1-080. Five levels have different floor plans when compared side to side. Roof step locations and the number of total floors is different, (see below for comparison of level 3 plans, as an example).
18 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
d. Sections do not include background elevations, or provide only a partial elevation. This gives the impression that the only relevance to the view is the building through which the section is cut.
E.g. Partial elevation 3 / 044-RCT-S01-A3-050 (see below)
e. Sections have been truncated, providing incomplete information.
E.g. section 10 / 044-RCT-S01-A3-052 is cut through B01 showing the 5th floor only. If the cut was extended to the left the jump up to the 6th floor would be apparent. This alters the perception of height in relation to the neighbouring house (see below).
E.g. Section 11 / 044-RCT-S01-A3-052 partially shows 3a John Rymer Place but living spaces are not discernible.
f. Floor levels on B01 sections are not portrayed accurately.
20 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
E.g. Sections 9, 10, 11 / 044-RCT-S01-A3-052 are labelled with the levels for B02-B06. This makes it harder to understand the relative heights and levels of the building.
3. It is impossible to interrogate the "existing ground contour" and "11m permitted building height" lines shown on elevations, particularly where the building steps inwards.
E.g. Elevation 1 / 044-RCT-B01-A2-020 is meaningless as the section line for the contour and 11m height is not shown in plan and does not relate to the building elevation drawn behind the line. There should be a separate set of lines for each building plane. As drawn, this is inaccurate and misleading.
4. Perspective renderings do not show typical sun-lighting conditions. Per 044-ASM- S01-A4-013, even at 7:00am on the summer solstice there is no direct sunlight on the building walls facing south-west. By 10:00am the sun has moved to a point the walls facing south-east barely receive sunlight. It is questionable whether the lighting shown in View 1 on 044-ASM-S01-A0-050 is ever seen in reality. It is certainly not typical, with the face of this building being in the shade for most of the time throughout the rest of the year. The same applies to views on 044-ASM-S01-A0- 006, view 2 on 044-ASM-S01-A0-004 and others. These renderings give the appearance of a sun-filled village with high solar exposure on the south-eastern elevations, which we do not consider to be accurate.
5. Site map has addresses of neighbouring properties mislabelled. Refer 044-RCT- S01-A0-010. 37a, 37b, 45, 45a and 47 John Rymer Place are incorrectly shown (see below).
21 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
6. Extent of "retained existing native planting" as indicated by a red bordered area on the Landscape Master Plan (Design Squared Landscape Architects) is misleading.
a. The new concrete block retaining wall and intermittent stream passes through this area in front of 247a and 249a Kohimarama Road. Approximately 50% of this planting will need to be removed to allow for the grading and construction of the new works. Refer to Tektus drawing 200 which shows in grey a much reduced area of planting, which would even still be subject to disturbance in order to cut a safe batter to construct the retaining wall and footing, (see below).
22 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
7. Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical Report describes B02, B04, B06 as 5-storey, and B03 and B05 as 3-storey.
8. As noted in Auckland Council's Development Engineers Report 24 March 2021 – Geotechnical – the east retaining wall is 3.66m tall per Tektus drawing whereas Beca shows it as 3.32m tall (044-RCT-ASM-S01-A0-020) and Tonkin & Taylor assess is as being no more than 2.5m high. This has impacts on 3a and 5 John Rymer Place and 247a and 249a Kohimarama Road.
2.7 Omissions in the Application
Following Auckland Council's Limited Notification process but prior to Ryman withdrawing from the Council consenting process, Council sent a s92 Further Information Request to the applicant on 24 November 2020 (see Appendix D). This raised many legitimate questions as a result of the submissions received, including a specific request from Council to provide additional visual simulations and assessment from certain properties.
Several Council specialists have noted the lack of response to the s92 request in their final reports supplied to the EPA.
23 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Ryman contacted and visited three property owners (3a, 19a and 38a John Rymer Place) and took photographs from which they could undertake simulations. Ryman returned to visit two property owners (3a and 19a) to share the simulations. They did not contact the third owner, nor did they provide copies of these simulations. The simulations were not provided as part of the application to the EPA. (Ryman has since provided two simulations after a specific request from the EPA). The owner of 247a Kohimarama Road, which was another listed address in the s92 request, contacted Ryman directly to ask them to visit the property. Ryman did not undertake this review.
This demonstrates an unwillingness of the applicant to acknowledge, engage with, demonstrate, or consider the impacts of the development on other properties.
2.8 Fast Track Consenting Process
KNI acknowledges the underlying reasons for the creation of the legislation that put into place the Fast-Track Consenting process. Following the 4-week COVID-19 induced lockdown in March/April 2020 there was enormous concern and uncertainty about the future of the economy. Many jobs were being lost. A recession seemed a certainty. Any help by central government to boost the economy was well intentioned.
The reality is that the economy, and in particular the Auckland construction sector, has bounced back incredibly well. There are now labour and material shortages throughout the industry. The market has created its own momentum, with commercial developments being consented and advanced into construction without assistance from stimulus packages.
This is not to appeal the process we are now working through, but to state for the record that KNI believes the review of this application under the Fast Track Consenting Act is not necessary to promote the growth of the Auckland economy. Consideration of the purpose of the Act should not be more important than the existing planning framework. It is not appropriate for a commercial development, with very little "public good", to skirt an established process – one that it was already well down the track with. Ironically, Ryman had a hearing timetabled with Council for mid-December 2020, which means the process has not enabled the application to be heard any quicker than the normal consenting process but has simply reduced the grounds for appeal.
24 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
We are now concerned that other developers wait in the wings, ready to use this application as precedence for future developments. The rigour undertaken by Auckland Council, as demonstrated by the numerous reports by specialist Council staff, is admirable. We are fortunate to have these specialists, who are based in Auckland, take the responsibility of overseeing development in their locale.
We submit that the Fast Track Consenting Act has its place, but that assessing projects of this nature is not it.
25 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
3. Legal Submissions
KNI has engaged MinterEllisonRuddWatts to provide legal submissions on behalf of the Society. These address legislative context, key issues and desired outcomes. Refer to Appendix E for a copy of these submissions.
26 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
4. Comment on Urban Design, Planning and Landscape
4.1 Introduction
The most common response from the members of KNI is along the lines of "it's too big, surely they can't do that!".
It is inarguable that the proposed development will have considerable visual impact throughout the neighbourhood. The quick, reactive response noted above is relevant because it speaks to the reasonable expectations that neighbours have living in this community. There is a standard for development that fits within the context of the community. It is well known, and sits well. The scale of zoning for this site has been well considered, and has staved off direct challenges. The community is on the "right" side of this argument.
The single biggest complaint about the proposed development is the "dominance". This is a word that is used to describe the effect of height, mass, bulk and visual impact. It relates to individuals in their own homes, and it relates to the development sitting amongst a landscape viewed from afar. It is a word referring to an uneven relationship between two things, and of being submissive or relegated. It is an emotional word, used in the same context as "oppressive" and "over-bearing". It speaks to the heart of the neighbourhood – the wellbeing of neighbours, the defining of a community, the character of our suburb, and the ability to focus on the enjoyment of anything when such "dominance" resides over the fence. It is hard to escape. It is permanent.
4.2 Urban Design and Landscape Assessment
KNI has engaged Richard Reid & Associates to report on the application from an Urban Design, Architecture, Landscape Architecture and City-making aspect. Refer to Appendix F.
27 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
4.3 Planning Report
KNI has engaged Civitas Planning Consultants to report on the application from a Planning aspect. Refer to Appendix G.
4.4 Riparian Yard Controls
The application includes the relocation of the intermittent stream closer to the northeast boundary as shown on Tektus drawing 400.
Four members of Kohi Neighbours Incorporated will be directly affected by the applicant's proposal which imposes a 10m Riparian Yard Control onto private property, limiting the freedoms of those property owners. In principle, KNI does not believe that Ryman should be entitled to undertake work of this nature for their own sole benefit without due consideration or compensation to the neighbours that it has a negative impact upon. We note that there has been no consultation with these owners. Two of the owners have attempted to engage in discussion with Ryman to no avail.
28 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
5. Comment on Architectural Design and Layout
5.1 Introduction
While it is acknowledged that significant effort will continue to be put into the design by the applicant for the purpose of Building Consent and For Construction documentation, the design as currently illustrated causes significant concern.
The documents reviewed include:
Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects by Ryman Healthcare, February 2021.
Appendix C, BECA Site Assessment plans and drawings (30 pages), February 2021.
Appendix C, BECA Visual Simulations (31 pages)
Appendix C, Architectural Site and Floor Plans (62 pages), November 2020.
Appendix P, Urban Design Review by Clinton Bird Urban Design Limited, 12 February 2021.
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated has engaged Lori Nielson, Environmental Gerontologist, to make an assessment of the proposed village design from a research-based gerontology approach focused on the social and physical wellbeing of residents – refer Appendix H.
Richard Reid, in his assessment of the design, also addresses many of these issues – refer Appendix F.
5.2 Site Layout and Circulation
The site is located on the south-facing side of a valley. The topography varies from a flat central plateau to steeply graded slopes on the north-west, north-east, and south boundaries. This obviously poses challenges for the layout of a large retirement village.
From a functional perspective the design by Beca has serious fundamental flaws:
29 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
A large portion of units are south-east or south-west facing with little or no sun entering living spaces.
Courtyards and outdoor spaces on the south side of tall buildings rarely receive sunshine, (see below).
Convoluted circulations routes exist for residents and visitors. No direct all-weather pedestrian pathway exists from the apartment towers to the common areas within B01, requiring the use of at least two lifts or stairwells.
Pathways at podium level to buildings B06 and B04 are not well defined in the landscape drawings, with the pathway interrupted by gardens. There is no direct and simple pathway, (see below).
30 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Pedestrian circulation in the basement carpark is poorly planned, with meandering pedestrian walkways sharing vehicle circulation space at the driving aisle end of parked cars. Pedestrians must cross the drive aisle unprotected at two locations (044-RCT-S01-A0-040). This is contrary to the AEE (p 23) that states "basement carparks will have dedicated pedestrian routes to ensure safe movement". Clinton Bird describes this as "a key sheltered walkway" (UDR, section 7.80, p 70). 30 parking spaces have a pedestrian walkway to the rear. Every time a car reverses out of one of these parking space there is potential for hitting an elderly pedestrian, (see below). This layout is equivalent to having residents walk on the roadway as their primary circulation route.
31 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Access to suitable outdoor exercise areas for Assisted Living residents is convoluted and substandard.
Integration of Independent Living apartments, village common spaces and Assisted Living Suites on the same floor is inharmonious.
Assisted Living Suites are spread over five floors. This is socially and functionally awkward.
No common areas or sheltered outdoor communal spaces exist within the apartment towers complex.
42 of the 123 Independent Living apartments (34%) contain 3-bedrooms. This is a much higher proportion than comparable villages, with the industry standard being 1 and 2 bedroom units, (by comparison, Oceania Meadowbank does not offer any 3- bedroom apartments). With occupancy of units limited to one or two persons the sizing of units seems incongruous with smart planning and higher density living. The additional area that these apartments occupy causes the buildings to be larger (and taller) than they need to be.
Outdoor exercise pathways appear to be inadequately narrow, graded more steeply than many residents will be able to handle, and do not loop around the village without going in and out of buildings.
There is no pedestrian entry off Kohimarama Road, except for the Skybridge which connects directly to a floor of private units. It is expected that this entry will be for residents with security access only. In lieu of navigating the circuitous route from the Skybridge to the apartment towers residents will opt to walk down the vehicular driveway.
The Auckland Design Manual (ADM) includes non-statutory guidelines on good design practice, developed in harmony with and supporting the intended outcomes of the AUP.
The ADM provides guidance for Designing for Light and Sun for Apartment Buildings, with the following being particularly relevant "Rules of Thumb":
At least 70 per cent of living rooms and private open spaces in a development should receive a minimum of three hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid- winter.
32 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Single aspect apartments with a southerly aspect (southwest to southeast) should account for a maximum of 10 per cent of the total units proposed. Developments that do not meet this minimum should be able to demonstrate how site constraints and orientation prohibit these standards from being achieved, and how issues of energy efficiency will be addressed.
The ADM has not been referred to by Beca, nor Clinton Bird in his Urban Design Assessment. In lieu of this, Mr Bird claims that "retirement units are not dwellings" (section 7.77 p 69) and focuses on relevant outlook standards. Beca drawings 044-ASM-S01-A0- 040 through 046 highlight "south-east facing units" and "units with living spaces on corners" (i.e. part of, or facing an internal corner). Clinton Bird notes that "only 29 (13.4%)" of units are purely southeast facing (p 69), although this is and of itself exceeds the ADM best practice guideline.
Regardless of any assertion that the ADM is not applicable and that "retirement units are not dwellings", the ADM does in fact provide well-grounded practical guidelines for good design.
Following the ADM guidelines and adding the southwest facing apartments to the Beca count, approximately 85 of the 216 apartments and assisted living suites, or 39%, receive insufficient sunlight. This does not account for any units shaded due to building geometry, which would push this total much higher.
We consider all these design issues fundamental flaws in the design, and cannot be easily solved by "tweaking the edges". Significant design modification is required.
5.3 Architectural Design
Several key architectural aspects of the design have been raised by multiple neighbours as important:
1. Roof form. The roof form is a dominant feature of the architectural design, comprising of flat membrane roofs with large overhangs and tall barges. Considering the site and many units already suffer from inadequate sunlight, the extended roofline provides unnecessary additional shading. When viewed from below, as many residents on John Rymer Place will, the buildings seem overly top-heavy and overbearing, (see below).
33 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Contrast has been made with Oceania's Meadowbank Retirement Village (Figure 4) which has a more residential style hipped roof with modest eaves. The Meadowbank example sits much better in the landscape. Another suggestion is to turn some of the flat roofs into terraces or green roofs to introduce planting throughout the building forms. Design modification recommended.
Figure 4: Oceania Meadowbank retirement village with staggered building heights and a less dominant roofline.
2. False roofs. B01 features mono-pitch pop-up roof profiles on all four elevations. These roofs act as architectural motifs only, as they do not provide occupied space within them, nor contribute meaningfully with shade or shelter for balconies. In fact, they are mostly a façade treatment, with the main roof at regular height behind them – as seen to the right hand side of Detail 2 on drawing 044-RCT-B01-A2-010 (see below). The roofs extend approximately 3m above the comparable floor level above.
34 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
The impact of these roofs is that they increase the building heights unnecessarily, increase shadowing, and further violate the AUP height standards for no functional gain. Design modification recommended.
3. Screening of back-of-house and mechanical plant. There is insufficient detail provided to assess the intended screening of unsightly back-of-house functions and mechanical plant. The visual appearance of rooftop plant, seen at eye level or above for many residents on Kohimarama Road and Whytehead Crescent, must be addressed in consent conditions and through developed design. Correlated to this is the location of kitchen exhaust (odour concerns) and acoustic screening (noise pollution). Conditions recommended.
5.4 Doing it Right
The importance of good design is valued within the surrounding resident community. Whilst Ryman has made the argument that shaded units or those with less desirable outlooks will provide a low-price option for village residents (UDR p 66), the reality is that nobody benefits from a building that is poorly designed.
Amongst our community are retired residents that will one day be residents of this or another village. There are also community members with a professional vocation in aged care who are genuinely concerned about the quality of living provided in retirement villages.
Poor design becomes a blight on the community.
A number of neighbours have also raised the concern that if the design is not "right" at the resource consent stage then the applicant may endeavour to modify it prior to construction.
35 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
This may have outcomes not in keeping with the consented design, which are "slipped in" through a less rigorous process.
For all these reasons we believe the current design should not be consented as-is.
36 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
6 Comment on Traffic and Parking
6.1 Introduction
These comments relate to traffic and parking anticipated for the proposed retirement village once operational. The following documents have been reviewed and inform these comments:
Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects by Ryman Healthcare, February 2021.
Appendix I: Transportation Assessment Report by Commute Transportation Consultants, 12 February 2021.
Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan by Commute Transportation Consultants, 29 January 2020
Appendix J: Proposed Conditions of Consent
Appendix V: Transportation Peer Review Summary Report by Flow Transportation Specialists, February 2021.
Memorandum by Jason Drury, Principal Development Planner, Auckland Transport, 5 November 2020.
Technical Memorandum by Paul Schischka, Principal Transportation Engineer, PTM Consultants, 22 February 2021.
Scheme Assessment Review by Benjamin Gonzalez, ATOC Smales, 18 February 2021.
Specialist Response by Jason Drury, Principal Development Planner, Auckland Transport, 25 February 2021.
Traffic Engineering Review Memo by Sarishka Gandi, Regulatory Engineering Central, Auckland Council, 22 May 2020.
37 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Specialist Response by Sarishka Gandi, Regulatory Engineering Central, Auckland Council, 26 February 2021.
6.2 Restrictions for School Peak Hours
Selwyn College has a roll of approximately 1270 students of secondary age and is located directly to the north-west of the site. St Thomas's School has a roll of approximately 730 primary and intermediate aged students and is located directly opposite the site, with a pedestrian entry off Kohimarama Road and its main entry off Allum Street. Both schools, and in particular St Thomas's, have recently undergone capital works projects to prepare for anticipated roll growth.
Although there is general consensus within the reports by the applicant's consultants, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport that restrictions are appropriate during peak school hours, the actual timeframes – more specifically for the morning period – are referenced inconsistently. (The afternoon peak is consistently listed as 2:30 – 3:30pm.) According to the application:
Selwyn College Peak Hour 8:00am – 9:00am (Draft CTMP, Commute, p 5)
Selwyn College Peak Hour 8:15am – 9:15am (TAR, Commute, p 5)
St Thomas's School Peak Hour 8:15am – 9:15am (TAR, Commute, p5)
School Peak Hours 8:30am – 9:30am (Appendix B - Peer Review Tracking, Peer Review Report Summary, Flow)
Restrictions 8:15am – 9:15am (Proposed Conditions of Consent, p 14)
The start/finish bell times for the schools are as follows:
Selwyn College 8:40am – 3:10pm
St Thomas's School 8:55am – 3:00pm
Anecdotal evidence from residents on Kohimarama Road suggest that the peak, combined for both schools, is 8:00am – 9:15am and 2:45 – 3:45pm. In particular, there is a lag after the bell time for Selwyn College with many students catching buses on each side of
38 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Kohimarama Road. We also note that students from other schools use the bus-stops on either side of Kohimarama Road in the morning and in the afternoon. These pedestrians must also be considered.
In addition to regular secondary school classes, Selwyn College runs a well-attended Community Education programme with evening, weekend and holiday classes. The Selwyn Theatre is used for many College and community events in the evenings and weekends. An after-school childcare programme is run out of Barfoot & Thompson Stadium, which also houses an Early Childhood Education centre. The stadium is often used as a venue sports practices, and for large sporting events. Associated with all these activities is a high number of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the neighbourhood.
Clarification: We request that Commute Transportation Consultants review their observational data, or undertake further surveying if data is not available, and confirm the actual extent of the school peak, particularly in relation to pedestrian and cyclist activity.
During the peak school time, it is entirely inappropriate to have vehicles enter or exit via the Kohimarama Road entrance. The applicant has proposed signage to notify drivers of the restrictions, and bollards set back from the boundary with an induction loop to automatically lower the bollards if a car inadvertently pulls into the driveway (to avoid drivers reversing onto the road). We note the various arguments and disagreement between various traffic "experts" acting for the applicant and Council, for bollards or gates with induction loops to automatically lower bollards or an intercom to contact reception. We defer to these "experts" to reach agreement. However, it appears reasonably likely that behaviour patterns will change and develop over time. We suggest that whatever the various traffic specialists agree on, there be specific monitoring for effectiveness and provision for Auckland Transport to require the applicant to make modifications to the measures used to achieve the most effective deterrence to drivers and the highest standard of pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Condition: The Kohimarama Road driveway into the village shall not be used during school peak hours of (TBC) – (TBC)am and (TBC) – (TBC)pm (following confirmation of actual school peak times).
Condition: Monitoring of the Kohimarama Road entrance shall be undertaken for the first 5 years of operation, to confirm adequate measures are in place to prevent drivers from attempting to enter this location during school peak hours. Auckland
39 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Transport shall be able to review and require applicant to provide additional measures.
6.3 Kohimarama Road Entrance – No Right Turn Out
The application confirms that there will be no right turn allowed for vehicles exiting the site. This is to be achieved with signage.
We believe that without some form of triangular island within the crossing that some vehicles will still attempt a right hand turn. At a minimum, the crossing will need to be painted to clearly indicate left turn only, and to make it clear that pedestrians have priority. We note Auckland Transport's statement (AT memo 25 February 2021 p 2) that a widened crossing or islands within the crossing can give drivers a sense of vehicle priority, lessen pedestrian safety, and create safety hazards for vehicle turning.
Condition: No right turn allowed when exiting at the Kohimarama Road exit. Signage shall be placed according to specialist traffic engineer. Monitoring shall be undertaken to confirm methodology is adequate, with provision by Auckland Transport to require applicant to make modifications to achieve compliance.
6.4 Kohimarama Road Entrance – No Right Turn In
The application allows for vehicles to enter site from the south-bound lane of Kohimarama Road, by pausing on the painted median, then turning right into site.
There is disagreement between traffic "experts" acting for the applicant and Council, about the safety and benefits of this.
If no right turn is allowed, then traffic is pushed to the John Rymer Place traffic lights. This issue must therefore be addressed along with 6.5 below.
The painted median is currently used by residents of the properties directly opposite the site on Kohimarama Road. The median provides a safe place to pause, out of the flow of traffic,
40 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
prior to turning right into their driveways. Additionally, the median is used as a pause point for residents leaving their house and turning right to merge with traffic. (Figure 5).
By increasing the volume of traffic using the painted median, with no rules around "priority", the likelihood of a conflict between drivers approaching in opposite directions is high, and the likelihood of a crash is increased significantly. The natural reaction in a head-on approach is to brake suddenly or veer back into the lane of moving traffic, which will also pose safety hazards.
Figure 5: Aerial simulation showing competing use of painted median for existing driveway users.
We note that during the off-peak and shoulder times, the traffic is still consistent and moves quickly on Kohimarama Road. Drivers waiting on the median must time their move between approaching cars. It is valid to note that the elderly generally have poorer vision, slower reaction times and are less aggressive drivers when compared to the general population. Their ability to safely cut between oncoming cars is impaired.
We have had comments from residents whose own parents live in a retirement village and continue to drive. They would not be happy with their parents navigating this entrance to the village.
The increased crash risk for residents, as well as north-bound drivers and residents of properties across Kohimarama Road is unacceptable.
41 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Per 6.2 above, Kohimarama Road entrance shall not be used during peak school times. We believe that the provision of a right-hand turn at selected hours only will cause confusion. We don't believe signage will adequately inform drivers that the entrance is closed.
The enforcement of a no-right turn policy is difficult. A raised median creates other risks (PTM para 43 p 6) and also prevents residents across the road from freely accessing their driveways. A raised triangular island within the vehicle crossing (as shown in Figure 5-3, p 16 in Commute's TAR) would make a right turn difficult, but as noted in 6.3 we accept that a raised island may be detrimental in other ways.
Signage on Kohimarama Road, and at the village, will be necessary. The applicant will also need to demonstrate an engagement and education programme with staff and residents.
Condition: No right turn allowed into Kohimarama Road entrance.
6.5 John Rymer Place Traffic Lights – Right Turn Arrow
We note the comments by Commute that the additional number of vehicle trips being generated by the village can be absorbed by the existing traffic infrastructure (p 37).
The applicant has not been able to provide information to identify what the direction of travel will be for these vehicle trips, or via which driveway they will enter the village.
The elderly resident population will typically have poorer eyesight, slower reaction times and be less aggressive drivers than others on the road. Therefore, we are not just concerned with the number of vehicles, but the nature of the drivers.
When approaching the site from the north, the safest route into the village for these drivers is via a controlled right turn arrow into John Rymer Place. PTM notes that this turn without an arrow, i.e. a filter right turn, increases crash risk and is not considered current best practice (PTM p 9). Providing a right-turn arrow is therefore the safest solution for all drivers on the road, as it will avoid crashes on Kohimarama Road. (Figure 6).
42 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Figure 6: Aerial simulation showing the John Rymer Place intersection.
If the recommendation in 6.4 above is accepted, that is, of no-right turn into the Kohimarama Road driveway, then additional vehicles will use the traffic lights to turn right into John Rymer Place and into the village via this route.
We understand the impact and delays likely for straight-through traffic if a right-turn arrow is implemented without additional changes to the layout of the intersection. However, this stretch of road will be a harrowing experience for many drivers if the safe option is not implemented.
Condition: Applicant will undertake the addition of a right-turn arrow to the traffic lights at the John Rymer Place / Kohimarama Road / Allum Street intersection.
If this condition is not acceptable to Auckland Transport then we propose an Alternative Condition, that if within five years of completion, based on observed traffic patterns, Auckland Transport assesses that a right-turn arrow is required, that the applicant must undertake this work or pay costs for the work to be performed.
6.6 Parking Restrictions – Offsite
43 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
The applicant has indicated it shall apply for a no-parking area of 10m on the north side of John Rymer Place, just to the south-west of the village access driveway, to provide visibility around the village access road (TAR p 20).
Together with the vehicle crossing, this eliminates 3-4 carparks from John Rymer Place.
Aside from being used by residents, this area is used by parents of St Thomas's School students to drop off and pick up their children. This is a convenient and safe location for parents to stop if they are travelling north on Kohimarama Road, and reduces the need for additional right-turn movements at the traffic lights into Allum Street. There is no other legal place to drop off children between Whytehead Crescent and Barfoot & Thompson Stadium.
In lieu of complete no-parking restrictions, we suggest a 15-minute time limit apply to parking on this side of the street. This will mainly be used during the school peak hours.
No parking spaces should be removed from the south side of John Rymer Place.
We note an application will be made to Auckland Transport for the parking restrictions. We ask that AT review the alternate arrangement proposed.
6.7 Parking Management – Onsite
John Rymer Place is a cul-de-sac with a total of 79 homes. Already there is a shortage of on-street parking, particularly at the western end.
The applicant has stated that there is adequate parking onsite for residents, staff and visitors. The applicant has not provided details on how parking will be allocated or managed.
Flow has recommended a Parking Management Plan be provided for review and approval prior to occupancy (p 15).
Condition: Applicant to provide a Parking Management Plan to Council for review and approval prior to occupancy. Applicant to require staff and residents to park within the village, and not on John Rymer Place. Applicant to provide adequate visitor parking in convenient locations, of sufficient size, with sufficient directional signage, to encourage all visitors to park within the village. Options must exist for oversized visitor vehicles.
44 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
6.8 Access Design
Applicant states that at the Kohimarama Road access point the driveway will be no more than 1:20 grade for 4m (TAR section 5.11, p24). It is noted that this is suitable for residential activities and 6m is required for other activities.
The access road curves at it approached the boundary.
Given the large scale of the development, numerous visitors and commercial vehicles (including food delivery, furniture delivery, office supplies, couriers, etc.) and the sensitive location of the crossing with pedestrian traffic and high vehicle flow on the road, it would appear that the 6m length is more suitable and safer for users and public alike.
It is also notable that the current footpath is approximately 0.8m below the road level. The footpath will need to be built up substantially to allow a compliant vehicle crossing. A retaining structure will likely be required for the footpath as the ground level will not be able to be built up substantially around the base of the existing Pohutukawa trees. Tree branches will need to be removed to provide clear headroom above the new footpath grade. (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Location of Kohimarama Road access point, showing difference in elevation of existing footpath and road.
45 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
The ramping up of the footpath needs to be done in accordance with accessibility guidelines. The maximum grade should be limited to 1:20, suitable for the disabled and elderly, which may require an additional length of footpath replacement.
A qualified arborist will need to assess the impact on the existing Pohutukawa.
We request the above changes be incorporated via design modifications to the application.
6.9 Other Traffic Restrictions
Once the village is operational, traffic patterns are likely to change and evolve as drivers – both residents of the village and other users of the road network – seek a safer or more convenient route.
At this time, we do not believe other traffic restrictions will be necessary. However, given the dramatic change that the development will bring to the area, and the fact that overall traffic counts appear to be trending higher over time, monitoring and reassessing of these conditions will be necessary.
Residents have legitimate concerns that restrictions imposed through the resource consent process could be appealed or uplifted after construction is complete, with little or no public consultation. Once the developer gets a "foot in the door" and is granted consent to build the physical manifestation of the consented works, they may potentially petition the authorities for alteration to the operational restrictions. This approach will not be tolerated by the community and we seek further assurances regarding the longevity of the conditions.
Condition: Auckland Council and Auckland Transport shall have the ability to monitor, review and to put into place additional restrictions or measures, at the cost of the applicant, for the first 5 years of operation.
Condition: Any material changes to the conditions of consent requested by the applicant, including any post-occupancy, shall be brought before the community for review.
46 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
7 Comment on Environment and Ecology
7.1 Introduction
The discussion in this section will focus on the design and permanent effects to the environment, as opposed to those associated with construction works which are addressed elsewhere in this submission.
The following documents have been reviewed in relation to this section:
Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects by Ryman Healthcare, February 2021.
Appendix D, Landscape drawings by Design Squared Landscape Architects (18 pages)
Appendix H, Arboricultural Report by Tree3 Limited, 12 February 2021
Appendix L, Attachment F, Civil Infrastructure Drawings by Tektus (23 pages)
Appendix N – Construction and Operational Noise and Vibration Assessment by Marshall Day Acoustics, 12 February 2021, incorporating Draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)
Technical Memo – Ecology, by Carol Bergquist, Senior Ecologist, Auckland Council, 23 October 2020
Landscape Architecture Specialist Report by Ainsley Verstraeten, Principal Landscape Architect, Auckland Council, 18 March 2021
S92 Further Information Request from Sandy Hsiao, Senior Planner, Auckland Council, 24th November 2020
7.2 Removal of Vegetation and Replanting
47 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
The existing site consists of a large expanse of grassed slope, with pockets of mixed- species trees and shrubs. According to available aerial photographs, these bush remnants have existed for several decades and are well established. Whilst many of the plant species are described in today's terminology as "weed" species (Arborist Report - Tree Audit, p 5), they offer a pleasant outlook for the many houses of John Rymer Place, Kohimarama Road and Whytehead Crescent that face towards the site.
Clusters of native trees and significant trees, particularly to the west and east of the site, are noted by the applicant for saving.
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated fully supports the retention of as much vegetation as feasible, for as long as possible. Where weed species are planned to be replaced with new planting we support the recommendation (LASR p 6) that weed species are replaced over time, so that new plants may grow up to a level they offer similar screening of the site before weed species are removed. (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Looking through the row of Pohutukawa trees on Kohimarama Road, the site presents a pleasant array of mixed vegetation, providing a view down the valley to housing beyond.
48 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
We draw attention to the fact that the applicant has not accurately depicted the extent of existing planting that will be removed.
The Landscape Master Plan by Design Squared shows in red outline the area of planting to be retained. In front of the properties at 245, 247a and 249a Kohimarama Road the newly located stream and retaining wall is clearly shown within the area of vegetation to be saved. The retaining wall is constructed of concrete blocks and is up to 3.3m tall (044-ASM-S01-A0- 020) and as such will require substantial excavation and structural footings. The remaining vegetation on this boundary will be minimal, exaggerating the impact of the development for these residents reliant on the screening provided by existing planting.
We support the recommendation by Ms Verstraeten that a detailed planting plan and methodology be provided as part of the consent conditions (p 20).
Along this boundary Ms Verstraeten recommends larger trees able to screen the development. We believe that the applicant should review the location of the stream and retaining wall with view to moving it further from the boundary. (This will also help with the issue of Riparian Yard Controls imposed by the applicant onto the neighbouring properties.) Retaining these existing groves of large specimen trees is important to the wider community, as well as the direct neighbours.
According to Design Squared drawing SK101, all specimen trees, except for 13no. Nikau Palms, are scheduled as 45L or PB28 in size. The 10-year expected height typically ranges from 4m to 6m.
45L is a 45-litre rigid plastic container, and PB28 is a plastic bag containing 28 pints of soil, equivalent to approximately 14 litres. These are pitiful sized specimens.
It is essential that large specimen trees are provided, particularly where they perform a screening function. These should also be planted as early as practicable in the staging of construction to allow them to grow for several years before the remainder of the landscaping is completed.
There is a general concern by neighbours that due to the shading provided by the new buildings that the trees will grow very slowly.
We note the following condition of consent imposed by Auckland Council in March 2021 on an application by Metlifecare for a retirement project in Howick, Auckland (LUC60360176).
49 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
"Within three months of the granting of this consent the consent holder shall procure 40 trees of 300L or greater and retain these trees ready for planting in the stage 3. These trees shall be planted in accordance with the landscape plan approved under condition 10 of this consent with a view to planting the trees as soon as practical after the completion of the site works and building construction to a stage of the remaining works being interior decoration only."
Clearly there is precedence and industry acceptance of much larger trees in key locations. Ryman should be held to best practice. Redesign is required. Additional conditions to the effect of the above are recommended.
There is legitimate concern amongst the community that there will be nothing to stop further removal of vegetation once the consent is issued and construction is completed. In particularly, removal of the wedge of native bush at the western end of the site. The integrity of this bush is a significant aspect of the application for which consent is being sought.
Condition: Applicant to create a covenant to protect the existing area of native trees from being removed at any time in the future.
7.3 Light Pollution
Lighting of the village is a significant concern for neighbours. The selection of fixtures and the placement of lights will have a major impact on glare and light spill. Shielding of pole lights within the village may be necessary to avoid viewing of the lights from neighbouring properties.
We note that residents of John Rymer Place will mostly be below the level of the buildings and will be more susceptible to the effect of downlights.
We support Council in calling for a lighting plan to meet "dark skies standards" for residential areas, e.g. NZS 4282 (s92, item 21).
We support the sequential dimming and turning off of lights around the exterior of the buildings no later than 10:00pm.
There has been no lighting information supplied by the applicant.
50 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Condition: Applicant to provide a detailed lighting plan with evidence that "dark skies" principles have been incorporated, with reference to relevant standards (e.g. NZS 4282).
7.4 Noise
Operational noise has been raised as a concern by neighbours.
It is not expected that the village residents will tolerate early morning rubbish trucks or other disturbances any more than the neighbours of the village.
Mechanical plant noise is the single biggest noise concern for neighbours. Often mechanical equipment is located on roofs and are therefore is not audible for the village residents.
Locations and types of mechanical equipment have not been provided by the applicant.
The AUP contains noise limits for residential areas, namely 40dB from 10:00pm to 7:00am (E25.6.2.1 – refer also to Section 9.2 of this submission). However, this is a measure of the sound pressure (loudness) only, and does not account for pitch, steadiness, variation (e.g. pulsating) or duration – other attributes per E25.1 that will cause a noise to be impactful on amenity.
Marshall Day Acoustics has only briefly addressed mechanical plant (section 5.1, NVA), focusing again on the noise rules contained in E25.6.2.1.
We wish to draw to the attention of the applicant and Council that neighbouring residents will not tolerate whining (tonal) noises disturbing peaceful evenings in an otherwise quiet valley, regardless of their compliance with stated sound pressure levels.
Given the existing quiet neighbourhood soundscape, and the focus of many resident submissions on birdsong throughout the valley, the nature of any noise will be closely scrutinized.
Equipment selection and acoustic screen design should be considered carefully.
51 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
7.5 Bird Habitat
It has been well documented in submissions to Council and noted by the Council Ecologist that the valley has an abundance of native birdlife (Technical Memo, Carol Bergquist). KNI has received feedback from multiple residents along this line.
Eastern Bays Songbird Project (EBSP) has been instrumental in this effort, coordinating an ever-growing group of volunteers with trap giveaways, bird counts, reporting, weed removal, planting programmes and advocacy. (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Eastern Bays Songbird Project volunteers have been active around the site for many years. This photo is from 2012 behind Selwyn College. Photo credit Martin Heffer, EBSP.
In 2020 EBSP commissioned researcher Kerry Lukies to undertake a study of local bird movement, producing a report titled "Ecological Corridors". It identifies the forest remnants around Pourewa Creek as important sites for birds moving between the mainland and pest- free islands in the Hauraki Gulf. The report is also an excellent resource on how to encourage and support birdlife through planting, trapping and more. (Figure 10)
52 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Figure 10: The forest fragments, existing corridors and proposed corridors in Kohimarama. Courtesy of EBSP.
KNI has been in close contact with EBSP regarding the potential development of the site, as the goals of EBSP are shared by most of our community. We attach a submission by EBSP as Appendix I.
Many of the suggested conditions are supported in Council's Ecology report and the s92 Further Information Request.
Condition: Applicant shall provide a full Environmental Management Plan that includes:
A Lizard Management Plan (LMP)
No vegetation removal during the bird nesting season from August to February. Vegetation to be done piecemeal to allow birds to relocate in a staged way.
53 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
A significant quantity of planting to be of native specimens selected to provide food source for native birds.
Retention of all native planting outside of the construction footprint.
Protective fencing of existing vegetation to prevent accidental damage or removal.
Early planting of replacement specimens. Specimens to be large/mature.
An ongoing pest trapping programme.
We strongly encourage Ryman to engage with EBSP on strategies to support native birdlife, to the benefit of the community and the village residents.
54 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
8 Comment on Construction Activities
8.1 Introduction
These comments relate to the activities associated with the construction of the proposed retirement village.
Relevant documents include:
Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects by Ryman Healthcare, February 2021.
Appendix J – Proposed Conditions of Consent
Appendix L – Attachment D – Erosion and Sediment Control Plan by Tektus, 11 February 2021
Appendix N – Construction and Operational Noise and Vibration Assessment by Marshall Day Acoustics, 12 February 2021, incorporating Draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)
Due to a minimum construction period of 36 – 42 months, the impacts of construction activities are not "temporary" in the usual sense of the word. They will be more significant than a typical construction project. The AUP standard is 24 months.
A reduction in the size of the project consistent with the changes indicated as necessary in Section 4 of this submission is expected to have only a minor reduction in total construction activity impacts from the site.
8.2 Noise Standard
Section E25 of the AUP addresses Noise and Vibration. It states in E25.1 that: (emphasis added)
Background Noise and vibration may cause adverse effects on amenity depending on:
55 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
when and where it occurs;
its duration;
physical characteristics, including the sound pressure level (loudness) and frequency (pitch);
its steadiness;
variations of these properties; and
whether special audible characteristics are present.
…The objectives and policies for noise and vibration seek to control the levels of noise and vibration created by activities to limit the adverse effects of noise and vibration on amenity values, human health…
Relevant objectives stated under E25.2 are that:
(1) People are protected from unreasonable levels of noise and vibration.
(2) The amenity values of residential zones are protected from unreasonable noise and vibration, particularly at night.
(3) …
(4) Construction activities that cannot meet noise and vibration standards are enabled while controlling duration, frequency and timing to manage adverse effects.
Policies relevant to construction include per E25.3:
(10) Avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration from construction, maintenance and demolition activities while having regard to:
(a) the sensitivity of the receiving environment; and
(b) the proposed duration and hours of operation of the activity;
(c) the practicability of complying with permitted noise and vibration standards.
The AUP states the standard for measuring construction noise is NZS 6803:1999 (E25.6.1(3)).
56 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Noise levels in residential zones are stated in Table E25.6.2.1:
The AUP specifically addresses noise limits for construction works. Table E25.6.27.1 includes decibel limits that appear broadly similar to NZS 6803:1999.
Further, E25.6.27(4) states:
For a project involving a total duration of construction work that is more than 20 weeks the noise limits in Table E25.6.27.1 Construction noise levels for activities sensitive to noise in all zones except the Business – City Centre Zone and the Business – Metropolitan Centre Zone and Table E25.6.27.2 Construction noise levels for noise affecting any other activity above shall be decreased by 5dB in all cases.
Since the Ryman project will be of continuous duration of 36-42 months E25.6.27(4) is triggered, and the table values above are to be reduced by 5dB.
Ryman's Proposed Conditions of Consent item 20 (p 12) does not reflect the 5dB reduction at all time periods, nor does it reflect the values within Section 3.2 of the Noise and Vibration Assessment (p8). The correct values must be included as a condition of any consent.
Note that this only addresses the loudness of the noise, and all other characteristics described in E25.1 may still mean a noise can create adverse effects, even if the noise level
57 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
limits are not exceeded. These decibel limits are a blunt measure of the impact on neighbouring residents and are not comprehensive enough to deal with the complexity of many situations. Council will be expected to enforce noise limits in keeping with the intent of E25.1, E25.2 and E25.3.
8.3 Work Hours and Restrictions
The applicant states that work hours will typically be between 7:30am – 6pm, Monday – Saturday (AEE, p 32). No work on Sunday or public holidays. Work that complies with NZS 6803:1999 Construction Noise is proposed to be allowed in addition to the stated hours.
However, elsewhere in the application, including Table 8 on p 33 of the AEE, work hours are shown to start at 7:00am.
The applicant should be clear and consistent about what they are stating in their application.
Due to localised topography, many houses are above the level of the site and have direct view to the site. This also means that noise will travel directly to the receiver and screening will not be effective. Empirical evidence demonstrates that the shape of the valley acts as an amphitheatre and heightens the impact of noise levels and reflective echoes.
Many residents have stated that the hours of work are one of their most significant concerns. It is expected that workers will arrive to site up to an hour or more prior to the "start of work", in order to beat the traffic, socialise, unload, undertake planning and safety briefings, etc. The applicant expects the project will create over 300 construction jobs (AEE p 105). Having even a fraction of these workers driving and parking on gravel access roads and staging areas causes considerable noise, with the further potential for car radios blaring, doors slamming, and loud talking ("special audible characteristics" per E25.1). This is a significant noise in and of itself, and is a major concern to neighbours.
Preparatory tasks or "quiet" works as described by the applicant in the Noise and Vibration Assessment (p 9), are addressed under Table E25.6.27.1 from 6:30am-7:30am, i.e. 55dB (allowing for the 5db reduction). However, due to the prolonged duration of the project, we also believe that consideration must be given to general noise restrictions for residential zones, with E25.6.2.1 requiring a much lower level of noise prior to 7:00am, i.e. 40dB. There is no special allowance for construction noise prior to 6:30am.
58 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Given the character of the early morning noise, the sensitivity of the receiving environment, and the duration of the construction works, we believe specific conditions around worker arrivals and work hours are justified.
The NVA goes on to state that quiet work within the building may be undertaken early in the morning or at night as it is within the AUP noise limits. Again, due to the noise created by non-work activity arriving and leaving the site, we recommend that this not be allowed.
Condition: No personnel are permitted onsite until 6:30am Monday – Friday or 7:30am Saturday. Location of worker parking shall be as far as reasonably practicable from neighbouring houses. Engine idling, audible radios, slamming of vehicle doors, loud conversations and the like shall be actively scrutinized. No start- up of machinery for warmup, maintenance or fuelling is allowed. Construction works of any sort shall not commence until 7:30am Monday – Friday or 8:00am Saturday. All works shall cease by 6pm Monday – Friday or 1:00pm Saturday. Now works shall be undertaken on the site on Sunday or Public Holidays.
With prolonged exposure, the cumulative impact from noise becomes increasingly important. There has been considerable concern raised by neighbours that there will be very little reprieve from construction and noise, with Sunday being the only day with no work undertaken. After several years of this the mental wellbeing of residents will be impacted. Weekend restrictions are required.
Condition: No earthworks, concrete floor pours (or other major pours), piling or other high noise-generating activities are to occur on Saturdays.
The potential for future impact from COVID-19 must also be considered. Under Alert Level 3 schools and most businesses are closed, meaning children and adults are typically based from home for the duration of the lockdown. However, construction sites are able to operate at Alert Level 3. Given the higher number of sensitive receivers during such time, the inability to consult with neighbours due to social distancing restrictions and the short notice that accompanies such Alert Level changes, and the heightened emotional sensitivity brought on by lockdown, the CMP must include special consideration for such an eventuality.
Condition: Reduced hours of 8:00am – 5:00pm Monday – Friday shall be put in effect during COVID Alert Level 3. Gates shall remain secure until 7:00am. Particularly noisy works shall be reduced in duration and intensity to the greatest extent practicable. No Saturday works to be undertaken.
59 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
8.4 Noise Exceedances
The Noise and Vibration Assessment by Marshall Day Acoustics states that no "unusually sensitive" receivers to noise are known, and that the consultation with neighbours will determine if any exist (NVA p 6). We have had confirmation from several neighbours that they work from home and that they feel particularly impacted by construction noise. It should be assumed by the applicant that there are sensitive receivers, and measures within the CNVMP should consider this within the baseline plan, not as a reaction once consultation is undertaken.
The application notes that exceedances of the AUP noise limits will occur, but for no more than 2 weeks for any individual receiver (NVA p 7). Residents have asked that advance notice be provided, and that monitoring be undertaken to confirm the extent of these exceedances. Of particular interest is how these specific durations and noise exceedances can be predicted given that the methodology, programme of works and detailed design has not yet been established by the applicant.
Proposed Condition 21 (p 13) is not acceptable as it refers to activity "generally specified" in the NVA which is unsatisfactorily vague.
Condition: Applicant shall provide advance notice to individual receivers where exceedances of the AUP limits are anticipated for up to a maximum of 2 weeks. The noise levels, receiver location, and duration shall be monitored by an independent expert engaged by the applicant. If a pattern of non-compliance with the anticipated noise limits or durations develops then work shall cease until alternate controls and consultation can be put in place.
8.5 Acoustic Barriers
The applicant states that where practical, acoustic barriers may be used to reduce noise received by neighbours. This potentially includes along the Selwyn College boundary.
Regardless of Selwyn College agreeing to the resource consent application, the burden still exists on the applicant to ensure noise limits per the AUP are not exceeded. The College
60 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
does not have the right to accept excessive noise that will be detrimental to the learning environment of its students.
Noise barriers must be installed along the Selwyn College boundary to the specification described in 5.4.2 of the NVA.
Condition: Noise barriers consisting of 18mm plywood or equivalent must be installed along the Selwyn College boundary to mitigate the noise impacts on the learning environment within the College.
In regards to other noise barriers, we note the sensitivity to visual obstruction that they may cause for property residents along the southern boundary (e.g. 17, 17A, 19, 19A John Rymer Place). Noise barriers at these locations should be set back from the boundary.
Condition: Noise barriers erected for a duration exceeding 2 weeks shall not unduly obstruct the visual amenity of properties.
8.6 Vibration
Construction vibration is described in Marshall Day Acoustics Noise and Vibration Assessment.
Of particular interest to residents is the potential damage to buildings that can occur with high levels or long durations of ground vibration.
The Draft CNVMP (section 7.3 p 15) proposes that pre-construction condition surveys be undertaken for buildings within 14m of a vibratory rolling location. To avoid doubt, we believe this should be expanded to include all neighbouring properties and any that make a request on reasonable grounds.
Condition: Pre-construction condition survey to be offered to all owners of property directly adjacent to the site, or with reasonable grounds to request such a survey. Upon suspicion of damage, or at completion of the works, a further condition survey shall be completed and compared to the original. Damage shall be repaired by applicant and shall include reasonable costs incurred by the resident to enable the works to be completed (e.g. vacating the property).
61 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
8.7 Noise Generating Equipment
General measures described in 5.3 of the NVA should be implemented. In particular, the following should be avoided, reduced or mitigated with an alternative approach if available:
Reversing alarms
Unnecessary noise such as shouting, the use of horns, site radios, rough handling of equipment or materials, banging or shaking excavator buckets, shaking of piling augers, high engine revs
Track squeal
Mobile generators
8.8 Noise and Vibration Monitoring
It is not satisfactory to the resident group to rely on monitoring by the contractors' site teams, nor to rely on a complaint process to identify breaches.
For any new activity or new area being worked in, we propose that an independent acoustic consultant undertake monitoring onsite. This may require coordinating with residents to establish electronic monitoring stations that can record noise and/or vibration levels over a 24-hour or longer period.
If levels are not within approved limits then the activity shall cease until mitigation measures can be introduced.
Condition: Applicant to engage an independent acoustic monitoring company to proactively identify breaches of approved noise and vibration limits. Records shall be provided to Council and upon reasonable request to residents or a local community group.
8.9 Earthworks
62 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
The applicant has not provided sufficient detail on earthworks methodology, equipment or programming. This is to be detailed in a Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted to Council.
Proposed Conditions of Consent item 6 states that this is to be provided 10 days prior to bulk earthworks. This is not acceptable.
Condition: Applicant shall provide a comprehensive Construction Management Plan to Auckland Council and shall obtain approval prior to any works being undertaken onsite.
According to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) by Tektus, 22 tonnes of sediment may be generated from earthworks onsite. This is to be managed and treated in accordance with a detailed ESCP, the CMP, and a Chemical Treatment Management Plan (ChemTMP) as required, to standards set by Auckland Council (GD05).
It is not satisfactory to the resident group to rely on monitoring by the contractors' site teams (section 4, ESCP), nor to rely on a complaint process to identify breaches.
Given the sensitivity of the receiving environment (Pourewa Creek) for any breaches, a robust, proactive and independent monitoring regime must be established. Redundancy within the design must be demonstrated. (Figure 11).
63 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Figure 11: Runoff from the site makes its way into Pourewa Creek and is visible via the walking pathways of Kepa Bush Reserve.
Condition: In addition to daily monitoring by the onsite contractor team, the applicant shall engage a suitably qualified professional to inspect erosion and sediment controls on at least a weekly basis, including pre-storm and post-storm, undertake necessary sampling of detention ponds and runoff, and review upcoming earthworks to ensure measures are put in place to prevent sediment runoff. Records shall be provided to Council and, upon reasonable request, to residents or a local community group.
Per 2.7 of the ESCP, stabilisation measures shall be employed to limit exposed earth. This includes aggregate cover on access roads.
Due to the noise – particularly early worker arrivals – and dust associated with gravel access roads, with the dirt that is tracked out onto streets from them, we believe the applicant should allow to provide sealed or concreted roadways. Note that this has been done for the site access road for the construction of the Glen Innes to Tamaki shared pathway behind houses from Kohimarama Road to Pourewa Creek.
64 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Condition: Site access and circulation roads shall be sealed to minimise noise, dust and track-out.
8.10 Planting
Reference is made in the ESCP and AEE to multiple seasons of earthworks rather than a continuous operation. No specifics are offered about what the scope of work for each season would entail.
To minimise exposure of earth and to reduce the visual impact from construction, neighbouring residents have commented on leaving areas of grass and vegetation intact until necessary to start construction in that area. This phasing should be included in the CMP for review.
In addition to this phasing, planning should include and actively strive to replant areas as soon as possible.
Plants intended to screen parts of the development, with special emphasis on perimeter planting, should be planted in the first planting season after site establishment, unless the location is reliant on completion of construction works to provide finish grade.
In general, large species should be selected for planting. We support the recommendations by Council to require a detailed planting plan as a condition of consent. Even in cases where planting cannot be undertaken early, large specimen trees should be purchased within the first 3 months after consent is given, and nurtured on or off site, to ensure maximum specimen size is provided. Note that this condition has been imposed by Auckland Council on Metlifecare in Howick, consented in March of 2021 (refer Section 7.2 of this submission).
8.11 Dust
Many residents close to the site are concerned about airborne dust being blown offsite.
We note and support Ryman's proposed Condition 8 (Proposed Conditions of Consent p 8) that noxious, objectionable and offensive dust not be deposited beyond the boundary of the
65 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
site, and Condition 9, that Ryman are to take all practicable action to prevent dust generation.
Aside from any hazardous substances identified in the Ground Contamination Assessment by Tonkin and Taylor and the potential impact on health and wellbeing, the concern is that dust and dirt will accumulate on houses, cars and in pools and require additional cleaning by the house occupants.
These residents have requested that reasonable mitigation be provided by the applicant providing house washing on a semi-annual basis, or other cleaning services from time to time as required.
Condition: Upon a reasonably supported request, applicant to undertake house, car or pool cleaning to remove accumulated dust and dirt resulting from the construction activities.
8.12 Light Pollution
Light pollution and glare is a major concern for residents as it will impact the enjoyment of their homes after construction work hours are over. It is vital that reprieve is provided from the construction environment that will be ever-present for many neighbours.
Floodlights, whether used for task lighting, general lighting, or security, should be reduced in number, brightness and location to minimise the impact on residents. Where possible they shall be set with a timer to turn off when the site is vacant.
Aside from necessary aviation obstacle lights on cranes, no other signage or illumination should be present on cranes.
Condition: Construction lighting shall be designed to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties, including security lighting. Lights shall not be left on unnecessarily overnight. Cranes shall not have signage or lights, aside from required aviation obstacle warning lights.
8.13 Containment of Activities
66 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
It is expected that the applicant shall fully secure the site with appropriate solid hoardings or mesh fences.
We note the improved visual appearance at the Summerset St Johns retirement village currently under construction, whereby the final permanent fence and landscaping on the main street frontage was completed prior to establishment onsite for the main earthworks and construction.
We also reiterate that neighbouring properties to the south are particularly impacted by any solid hoarding or barrier placed on the boundary (in front of 17, 17A, 19, 19A John Rymer Place for example). Consultation with those neighbours may be required to suitably fence that area of site.
Hoardings at all times should be tidy in appearance and secure to prevent children from entering.
Gates should be in-swinging to avoid obstruction on the public right of way.
All toilet blocks, lunch rooms and site sheds shall be fully contained and sanitary. A smoking area should be provided onsite. There should be no reason for workers to loiter outside the site for breaks. This is particularly important given the proximity to two schools.
Condition: Workers shall not loiter outside of the site for any reason.
8.14 Consultation
KNI intends to continue its roll in receiving and disseminating information as it pertains to any development consented for the site. The Society wishes to have a proactive and supportive role with Council to ensure residents are not adversely impacted any more than envisaged by the consented works.
At a minimum, we request copies of the following documents, along with any revisions, to be provided prior to Council's approval so that pertinent feedback may be provided to Council and considered before approval is granted.
Construction Management Plan (CMP)
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
67 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Chemical Treatment Management Plan (ChemTMP)
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP)
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
The following monitoring results should be available upon request:
Erosion and Sediment Control monitoring
Noise and Vibration monitoring
It is acceptable to KNI to receive these directly from Council, and therefore do not need to make it a condition of the consent, provided that Council is accepting of this process.
Further, should KNI or residents identify shortcomings in any of the plans previously approved based on changed conditions or unforeseen consequences, the issue should be able to be raised with Council and the applicant through a regular consultation process. Where necessary the applicant should be directed by Council to update the applicable plan to respond to reasonable resident or community concerns.
68 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
9 Comment on Construction Traffic
9.1 Introduction
These comments relate to traffic and parking associated with the construction of the proposed retirement village once. Refer to Section 6.1 for a list of documents reviewed in relation to Traffic, which also apply to this section.
Due to a minimum construction period of 36 – 42 months, the impacts of construction traffic are not "temporary". They will be more significant than a typical construction project. The AUP standard is 24 months.
Any reduction in the size of the project is expected to have a corresponding reduction in total vehicles accessing the site, but is unlikely to change the peak daily number of vehicles.
9.2 General Access Restrictions
The key provisions of Section 6 of this submission are also relevant to the construction period. Whereas elderly residents will not be making trips to and from the construction site, the increased number of vehicle movements and large, slow turning vehicles makes the general issues comparable.
Condition: Applicant to submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to include the following provisions:
No entry or exiting for any vehicle via the Kohimarama Road access point during school peak times. (Refer to Section 6.2 for confirmation of these times.)
No right-turn entry via the Kohimarama Road access point
No right-turn exit from the Kohimarama Road access point
In addition, we recommend that the right-turn arrow at the John Rymer Place traffic lights be installed prior to construction begins. This requirement may be added to the condition under Section 6.5.
69 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
9.3 Site Access for Worker Vehicles
Assuming work hours will be restricted as per Section 8.3 of this submission, we believe it is appropriate to limit early morning traffic on John Rymer Place to help maintain the peaceful residential environment. The applicant should encourage workers generally not to arrive until 7:00am, but it is acknowledged that a smaller number of management and core staff would be likely to arrive prior.
Condition: Gates shall be kept secure to restrict activity onsite as follows:
Gates on Kohimarama Road to open no earlier than 6:30am Monday – Friday, and 7:30am Saturday to allow worker entry.
Gates on John Rymer Place to open no earlier than 7:00am Monday – Friday, and 7:30am Saturday to allow for worker entry.
Gates shall close at 6:30pm.
9.4 Site Access for Standard Trucks
The need for workers to arrive early to undertake safety and planning activities pre-work is acknowledged in Section 8.3. There is not the same need for materials, equipment and earthworks trucks to arrive in advance of the permitted work hours. We believe trucks should be encouraged to use the Kohimarama Road entry in the morning to avoid conflict with John Rymer Place residents leaving their street. This should be noted in the CTMP by the applicant.
Condition: Trucks shall be prohibited from entering the site until 7:00am Monday – Friday, and 8:00am Saturday.
9.5 Site Access for Heavy Vehicles
Heavy vehicles including truck & trailer units, semi-trailers, dump trucks, concrete boom pumps, precast panel frame trucks, long rigid flat-bed trucks, transporters, and other large trucks pose a greater impact on traffic flow due to their lack of manoeuvrability.
70 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
It is noted by the applicant's traffic engineer (p 43 of TAR, Commute) that a semi-trailer cannot turn left from Kohimarama Road into John Rymer Place without using both north- bound lanes. This is a significant safety hazard and should be prohibited, as recommended by Commute. Similarly, Commute identifies that these trucks cannot successfully turn left out of John Rymer Place into Kohimarama Road (p 44), and this movement too, should be prohibited.
Per the vehicle tracking curves provided by the applicant (TAR, p 43), trucks exiting the site onto John Rymer Place swing into oncoming traffic.
Vehicle tracking curves have not been provided for the Kohimarama Road access point. Prior to any consent approval, this should be provided to confirm it is suitable for left-in / left- out manoeuvres without causing undue safety risk for road users. Further information required.
Generally, the impact of arriving trucks is less than that of departing trucks, as the arriving truck self-regulates the speed of traffic for only as long as is needed to execute an entry manoeuvre. Due to the already slow northbound traffic flow in the morning commute the arrival of these trucks onsite will likely not have a major impact on traffic. However, having trucks pull out of site into heavy traffic will create a ripple effect on already congested streets. There is also increased pedestrian and cyclist risk having these vehicles leave site during school peak times.
Having trucks leave site via John Rymer Place in the evening commute period increases risk of a head-on collision. This should be restricted.
We support the recommendation by Flow (Peer Review, p 11) that Kohimarama Road be used as the primary access point for large semi-trailer trucks. This should be reflected in the CTMP.
Condition: Heavy vehicles shall be prohibited from leaving site via either access point between 7:00am and 9:15am, between 2:30pm and 3:30pm (school peak, to be confirmed per Section 6.2), and 4:00pm and 6:00pm, Monday – Friday (commute peak).
Condition: Heavy vehicles shall be prohibited from turning left from Kohimarama Road into John Rymer Place, or from turning left from John Rymer Place into Kohimarama Road.
71 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
9.6 Site Access for Concrete Trucks
It is acknowledged that large concrete pours require a steady supply of ready-mix concrete, and that it is impractical to start and stop concrete pours or to limit the size of a pour based on traffic restrictions. This is not to say that concrete pours per se cannot be sequenced to accommodate traffic restrictions identified above. For example, where a high level of finishing is not required (e.g. foundations) the pour may be started later in the day and not run the risk of exceeding the allowable total work hours for the site.
Condition: Where reasonably practicable, concrete pours shall be coordinated to allow compliance with the above trucking restrictions. For unusually large concrete pours, concrete trucks may enter site via the two access points within the restricted times, provided that two Traffic Controllers are stationed at each gate.
9.7 Oversized Loads
Oversized or piloted loads will need special transport planning, including potentially special permits.
Where possible these loads should be accommodated within the standard worksite hours. If this is not permitted, they should be as close to the hours as practicable.
Such deliveries should be identified by the applicant in the CTMP. Neighbouring residents should be notified at least 48-hours in advance of out-of-hours deliveries.
9.8 Staging of Trucks
Due to access restrictions there may be a need for trucks to stage away from site. Suitable staging areas should be suggested by the applicant as part of the CTMP. Noting that the suggested traffic restrictions are due to congestion and school peak pedestrian/cyclist traffic, we suggest that any staging location be at least 500m from site.
72 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
9.9 Temporary Traffic Management
The applicant proposes a full time Traffic Controller (TC) or Site Traffic Management Supervisor (STMS) stationed at each gate (p 42 & 45, TAR, Commute). We agree that this is essential to hold back exiting trucks onsite when other trucks are trying to enter, to stop trucks when pedestrians are present, and to generally assist in keeping traffic flowing on the streets and keep pedestrians safe.
TC's should also prevent entering vehicles waiting at gates when closed.
Due to proximity to schools all TC/STMS's should be police vetted.
Many residents have expressed concern over the blight that temporary traffic management controls have on the street and community. Cones and signage on Kepa Road have been a good example of this done poorly. The use of cones along the kerb channel is also a safety risk for cyclists as it narrows the lane. (Figure 12)
Figure 12: Temporary traffic signs and cones have been – and continue to be – a blight on Kepa Road.
Given the prolonged duration of works, signage should be set up as a semi-permanent installation and not be reliant on tripod signs and cones.
73 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Temporary Traffic Management controls for any particularly large deliveries, including any that must cross the painted median, should in the first instance be designed based on rolling-blocks rather than full TTM setups and/or stop-go controls.
Condition: Approval shall be obtained from Auckland Transport for Temporary Traffic Management Plans prior to contractor establishment onsite. These plans shall limit the number of temporary signs and cones as reasonably practicable.
Condition: Each access gate shall be staffed full time by a qualified and police-vetted Traffic Controller (TC) or Site Traffic Management Supervisor (STMS).
9.10 Parking Restrictions – Offsite
The applicant has provided heavy truck tracking curves for the John Rymer Place access point (TAR p 43). These show exiting trucks swing into oncoming traffic and require the street to be clear of parked cars opposite the access point.
The applicant plans on requesting no-stopping at all times (NSAAT) parking restrictions on both sides of the road from the intersection to the access point.
This equates to approximately 8 carparks, currently used by residents of the adjacent houses. These spaces are also used by parents of St Thomas's School students to drop off and pick up their children. This is a convenient and safe location for parents to stop if they are travelling north on Kohimarama Road, and reduces the need for additional right-turn movements at the traffic lights into Allum Street. Refer also to Section 6.6.
Removal of street parking on an already busy street is a significant impact on residents.
Per the recommended conditions in Section 9.5 above, there should be no large vehicles exiting site prior to 9:15am, or after 4:00pm. Therefore, it seems reasonable that parking restrictions are not required 24/7.
We note an application will be made to Auckland Transport to make a decision on the parking restrictions. We request that the applicant only request no-stopping restrictions from 9:15am – 4:00pm, and ask that AT seriously consider the impact of any longer term reductions on the local residents and school community.
74 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
9.11 Parking Management
Applicant states in 7.3.1 of the AEE that "construction parking is expected to be accommodated onsite". Commute states in the TAR section 9.5 that "initial discussions with the construction team indicate that construction parking requirements can be accommodated onsite as the basement areas are expected to be constructed prior to the majority of the construction and fit out stages".
John Rymer Place has limited on-street parking, which is already congested from resident use. There are NSAAT markings all along Kohimarama Road in either direction for some distance. Allum Street, Southern Cross Road and Whytehead Crescent have street parking that is well used by residents.
During construction of apartment buildings on Kepa Road contractor vehicles have parked on berms and across driveways on Kepa Road and adjoining residential streets. This has been an eyesore, an immense frustration for residents, and a danger.
Condition: Applicant shall require all workers, visitors, suppliers and other vehicles to park onsite. Specifically, there shall be no parking by workers on residential streets or on berms. Auckland Transport are to be provided the powers to enforce through tow-away of offending vehicles.
9.12 Allum Street
Commute state on p 43 of the TAR that "trucks can travel straight through from Allum Street into John Rymer Place without issue", and on p 44 that from John Rymer Place "trucks can turn right onto Kohimarama Road or proceed straight into Allum Street".
Section 9.6 of the TAR provides potential truck routes, including from the north and south along Kohimarama Road.
The Board of Trustees of St Thomas's School made a submission to Auckland Council (ref Appendix I) in October 2020 specifically requesting that trucks were not allowed on Allum Street due to the safety of their students.
For the sake of absolute clarity, the following condition is recommended:
75 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Condition: Truck traffic associated with the development shall be prohibited on Allum Street.
9.13 Track-Out of Dust and Dirt
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated supports statements made by the applicant regarding the use of truck-wash stations to mitigate track-out of mud and dirt onto the streets.
We believe the sealing of internal roadways (per section 8.9 of this submission) will assist in meeting this objective.
Any visible track-out should be attended to with appropriate removal equipment within 24 hours. Equipment should be available on demand.
Condition: Contractor shall take measures to avoid track-out of mud, dirt and dust. Any visible track-out shall be attended to as soon as practicably reasonable, but no longer than 24-hours after occurrence.
9.14 Condition Assessment of Roads
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated supports statements made by the applicant regarding the undertaking of pre-construction condition assessments of roads and footpaths in the vicinity of the site. Any damage is to be repaired by the applicant.
Given the duration of construction, we do not believe it is reasonable to wait until the end of the project to make repairs. Damage to roadways is dangerous for cyclists in particular. Damage to footpaths is dangerous for pedestrians and other users.
Condition: Applicant shall undertake a condition assessment of all roadways and footpaths within the vicinity of the site, and provide such to Council. Should any asset be damaged and require repair to maintain satisfactory utility by the public, then repairs shall be undertaken as soon as practicably reasonable, but no longer than 2- weeks following notice from Auckland Council or Auckland Transport.
76 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
9.15 Enforcement
Many members of KNI have expressed concern regarding the enforcement of any consent conditions. The expectation is that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will respond to complaints in a timely manner and enforce corrective actions. However, with Council's well- known budgetary situation there is a legitimate concern that resources will not be available and the contractor will not be held to account.
If the applicant is truly committed to meeting the conditions of consent, then they will surely be open to suitable penalties for any repeat or wilful non-compliances.
KNI requests further assurances that conditions will be enforced.
KNI also requests that a formal community consultation process be established with the applicant, Council and AT to monitor and review adherence to the consent conditions during the construction phase.
9.16 Partial Occupancy During Construction
The applicant has stated their intent to occupy parts of the project – specifically the apartment towers – prior to the remainder of the project being complete (AEE p 6).
We note the comments by Flow in section 6.2 of the Peer Review, that "it is likely to be difficult for the development to be constructed in stages".
KNI seeks assurance that the consent conditions will not be materially altered if early occupancy of some buildings is sought by the applicant.
KNI requests adequate consultation by the applicant and Council prior to amendment of any conditions.
Refer to 8.14 for comment on the ongoing role of KNI and requested consultation on specific plans provided by the applicant.
77 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
10 Summary and Conclusion
10.1 Summary
The sections of this report have demonstrated the following:
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated was formed to provide a voice for neighbours and community members around the proposed site.
Kohi Neighbours Incorporated supports development of the site into an appropriately designed retirement village.
The site at 223 Kohimarama Road and 7 John Rymer Place has been the subject of several development and rezoning attempts. Ryman's application is not unique in this respect.
On each occasion, the accepted height limits have been generally keeping with the current MHU zoning under the AUP.
Ryman did not consult with the community, nor visit neighbouring properties to assess the impact of their application. They have not made modifications to the design based on feedback through the Council submissions process.
The application documents contain errors that make it difficult to fully assess the actual and potential effects on the environment.
The breaches of the AUP result in a development unsuitable for the site. The dominance of the buildings on adjacent neighbours, residents in the wider neighbourhood, and community members, is unacceptable and an example of poor urban planning and design.
The proposed landscaping has been falsely portrayed. A greater area of existing vegetation will be removed than indicated. Trees will not provide significant screening of the buildings for many years to come.
Fundamental design issues exist when assessed from the perspective of social and physical wellbeing for residents.
78 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
Light and noise pollution after construction have not been addressed by the applicant.
Bird habitat will be destroyed, affecting the efforts of local volunteers to regenerate bird life in the area.
Vehicular access to the completed development as detailed in the application is unsafe.
The 36 to 42-month construction timeframe will make any impacts from construction more significant.
Construction noise will be significant and impact on residents' quiet enjoyment of their homes. Proposed work hours are unacceptable.
Monitoring of noise and vibration needs to be undertaken independently.
Earthworks undertaken onsite will be the cause of erosion, dust, noise and traffic issues. A detailed plan and consideration of neighbours and the environment will be necessary. Independent monitoring is required.
Light pollution from construction activities needs to be managed to mitigate impacts on neighbours and the environment.
Proposed vehicular access to site is unsafe and will have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents and the wider community.
There is a need to establish a formal process for consultation, monitoring and communication between Council, contractor and the community.
A number of conditions have been proposed to mitigate impacts on the community if a development is to proceed in any form.
79 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
10.2 Conclusion
While recognising the capacity and need for growth, residents of Auckland are entitled to hold reasonable expectations around what will happen "over the fence". Kohi Neighbours Incorporated has demonstrated what this "reasonable expectation" is, the legal grounds for that expectation, the urban design and planning principles behind this, and how appropriate mitigation measures can result in favourable outcomes through consultation with the community. We have demonstrated that the Ryman application for a Comprehensive Care Retirement Village in Kohimarama does not meet the reasonable standard for development that was envisioned by planners and expected by the community.
Unless significant design modifications are made, Kohi Neighbours Incorporated strongly urges the EPA Expert Consenting Panel to DECLINE the present application.
80 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021
i Letter from AS Calvert, Chair, Board of Trustees, Selwyn College to Karl Hutton, Ministry of Education, 4 June 1998. ii Information released by Ministry of Education under OIA Request: emails and memos related to disposal of property, including Memo from Karl Hutton, District Property Manager – Auckland, Ministry of Education 7 March 2000, subject: "Submission for Surplus Property Disposal – Selwyn College". iii Valuation Report – Hypothetical Subdivision by Colliers International for DTZ New Zealand acting for the Ministry of Education, January 2006. Section 2.4, p 6. iv Letter from Tim Papps, DTZ New Zealand to Colliers Jardine 28 October 2005. v Release under OIA request, memo from Ministry of Education, 18 February 2007. vi Private Plan Change Request, Assessment of Environmental Effects, Barker & Associates, November 2007, p 1. vii Auckland City Council Report on Proposed Private Plan Change 219 from Tania Richmond, Consultant Planner, 31 October 2008, p 11. viii Auckland City Council Report on Proposed Private Plan Change, Appendix 1. ix Auckland City Council Memo from Tania Richmond, Consultant Planner, to Hearing Commissioners for Plan Change 219, Subject: Response to matters arising during the hearing and amended recommendation, 16 December 2008.
81 Kohi Neighbours Incorporated – EPA Submission – Ryman Kohimarama – 6 April 2021