Landscape Architecture)

In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 And In the matter A notice of requirement to designate land for education purposes at 116 State Highway 30, Tikitere, Rotorua by the Minister of Education

Statement of evidence of Simon Leigh Button (Landscape Architecture)

14 June 2021

Solicitors: J Beresford PO Box 90750, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142 DX CP24063 T: +64 9 336 7500 [email protected]

Statement of evidence of Simon Leigh Button

1 Executive summary

1.1 My name is Simon Leigh Button. I am a Senior Landscape Architect engaged by the Ministry of Education (Ministry) to provide landscape and visual effects advice in relation to the Minister of Education’s (Minister) notice of requirement (NoR) to designate land for education purposes at 116 State Highway 30, Tikitere, Rotorua (site).

1.2 My evidence has been prepared with reference to the revised building bulk and form conditions included within the evidence of Mr Ensor, which are also illustrated on the Site Constraints Plan in Annexure 3 of Mr Ensor’s evidence. The revised building bulk and form conditions are summarised as:

(a) A maximum building height of 7.5m on the ridgeline within the centre of the site (identified as Area A1 on the Site Constraints Plan).

(b) A maximum building height of 12m on the remainder of the site (Area A2 and Area B on the Site Constraints Plan).

(d) A building setback of 10m from the eastern and southern site boundaries.

(e) A building setback of 5m from western site boundary.

(f) A maximum site coverage of 25% across individual areas of the site. This includes a maximum site coverage of 25% across Areas A1 and A2 combined, and a separate maximum site coverage of 25% across Area B.

1.3 My evidence assesses the effects of the proposal on landscape character and visual amenity.

1.4 In my opinion the proposed designation of land for education purposes at 116 State Highway 30, Tikitere, Rotorua will result in no more than Very Low (less than minor) effects on landscape character because:

(a) The site’s localised setting is broadly characterised by a rural residential landscape interspersed with working rural land uses, with existing buildings and large structures being commonplace within the surrounding environment.

(b) The proposed building bulk and form conditions and landscape recommendations will ensure that the underlying rural character of the site is maintained by restricting building height and site coverage.

1.5 In my opinion the proposed designation of land for education purposes at 116 State Highway 30, Tikitere, Rotorua will result in no more than Low (less than minor) effects on visual amenity because:

(a) The proposed building bulk and form conditions and landscape recommendations will ensure that development within the site is not overprominent.

(b) The provision of mitigation planting and a no build zone will ensure that rural outlooks are maintained, and that separation is provided between the proposed development and neighbouring residences.

(c) Where proposed development will be visible, it will be seen within the context of existing development within the site and rural residential development within the immediate and localised context to the north and east.

1.6 In my opinion, the revised building bulk and form conditions, alongside the landscape recommendations included within section 9 of my evidence will ensure that the introduction of a Kura Kaupapa Māori and Wharekura o Ngati Rongomai (Kura) can be successfully accommodated within the site with less than minor effects on the receiving landscape character and visual environment.

2 Qualifications and experience

2.1 My full name is Simon Leigh Button. I hold a BA qualification in landscape architecture with town and regional planning and a Masters’ qualification in landscape architecture obtained from the University of Sheffield (United Kingdom).

2.2 I am a Senior Landscape Architect at Isthmus Group. I have been at Isthmus since March 2019 and prior to this I was a landscape architect in the United Kingdom. I have over 8 years’ experience as a landscape expert.

2.3 My evidence supports the Minister’s NOR to designate land for education purposes at the site.

2.4 Throughout my career I have worked with both private and public sector clients on a wide range of projects in both urban and rural landscapes across the United Kingdom and New Zealand. I regularly undertake landscape, visual, and urban design assessments for projects of varying scales in the residential, educational, industrial, commercial, retail, and renewable sectors. In late 2020 and early 2021 I gave evidence at council hearings in Northland and Auckland, providing evidence which focussed on visual amenity effects on residents in the rural environment.

2.5 I have been provided with a copy of the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court’s Practice Note 2014. I have read and agree to comply with that Code. This evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

3 Role in the project and scope of evidence

3.1 I first became involved in the project in March 2019 when I was engaged by the Ministry to undertake a Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Report1 (LVA) to assess the landscape and visual effects arising from the proposal.2 I am familiar with the area and have visited the site on 28 March 2019, 26 April 2019, and more recently on 16 April 2021. The LVA and its supporting Graphical Appendices were submitted in support of the application.

3.2 I have reviewed the Council planner’s s 42A report and the submissions received in opposition to the proposal, and have provided a revised list of landscape recommendations and conditions.3

3.3 The purpose of my evidence is to summarise the LVA and respond to matters raised by the submitters and the Council planner.

3.4 My evidence is set out as follows:

(a) Existing environment.

(b) Assessment methodology.

(d) Assessment of visual amenity effects of the project.

(e) Relevant statutory and planning considerations.

(f) Landscape recommendations.

(g) An assessment of the submissions received relevant to my evidence.

(h) An assessment of matters raised in the Council planner’s s 42A Report.

(i) Conclusions.

3.5 In summary, my view is that provided that the landscape conditions that I have recommended are imposed, then confirming the designation would have Very Low to Low adverse effects on the visual amenity and landscape character of the receiving environment.

4 Existing environment

4.1 The site is a rural residential lot currently used for horse grazing pasture. The site includes vacant residential and agricultural buildings which are located centrally on site, with a large agricultural shed also located along the southern site boundary.

1 Landscape and Visual Amenity Assessment Report, Isthmus, dated 14 September 2020, submitted with the s 92 response. 2 The proposal is to designate land to the south of SH30, to facilitate the relocation of an established Kura Kaupapa Māori and Wharekura o Ngati Rongomai (Kura and Wharekura) for Years 0 – 13 and kohanga reo (Māori immersion early childhood education centre). 3 Outlined within section 9 of my evidence.

4.2 The site is located to the south of SH30, approximately 0.5km to the south east of the Brunswick Park residential estate, Tikitere.

4.3 The wider rural environment4 is predominantly characterised by rural land in pastoral use, interspersed with blocks of woodland, shelterbelts, and native bush, largely located on hill slopes. The developed setting to the north and north-west includes more regular two storey dwellings. Medium and large-scale agricultural buildings and sheds are commonplace within the surrounding rural environment.

4.4 The site and its localised setting are characterised by low to medium density rural residential development, with larger scale rural lots located further east and south.

4.5 Within the site’s localised setting, dwellings are largely single storey weatherboard, mostly set back from SH30 behind a combination of fencing and planting.

4.6 The topography of the site includes a localised ridgeline which is located broadly parallel to SH30 in the northern part of the site. The ridgeline rises to approximately 10m above the road corridor and extends into the neighbouring lot to the east (154 SH30). The topography of the ridgeline entirely contains views into the southern and central parts of the site when viewed from the north. An existing ‘cluster’ of development within the site,5 and on the neighbouring lot to the east, is located on the ridgeline.

4.7 A full description of the site and its surrounds can be found in paragraphs 14 – 30 of the LVA and is visually illustrated within the plans and photographs contained within the graphical attachments in Annexure One to my evidence. As discussed below, the graphical attachments to my evidence have been updated from those submitted prior to notification of the NoR.

5 Assessment methodology

5.1 The LVA and this statement of evidence have been prepared according to recognised landscape assessment methods in accordance with the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA) Best Practice Note: Landscape Assessment and Sustainable Management 10.1 and the Te Tangi a te Manu: Aotearoa New Zealand Landscape Assessment Guidelines.6 The steps that I took to assess the site, the broader physical context, the proposal, and the natural character, landscape and visual effects are set out in paragraphs 3 - 7 of the LVA.

5.2 My evidence at sections 6 and 7 summarises the effects of the proposal on landscape character and visual amenity values using a seven-point rating scale for the effects (below), which is symmetrical around ‘moderate’. Words are used in preference to numbers to reduce the likelihood of using ‘scores’ in a formulaic way.

4 To the south and east of the site (east of SH30 and Lake Rotorua, north of Hawthornden Drive) and to the north of Brunswick Park residential area (south of Lake Rotoiti). 5 Which includes a residential dwelling and two separate ancillary buildings. 6 Final draft subject to final editing, graphic design, illustrations, approved by Tuia Pito Ora/NZILA 5 May 2021.

5.3 The following table provides comparison of how the effect ratings typically relate to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) scales of ‘less than minor’, ‘minor’ and ‘more than minor’.

Very Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High Very high – Low – High Less than Minor Minor More than Minor

5.4 My assessment of effects combines both value ratings (Very Low – Very High) and nature of effects (Adverse, Neutral, Positive). Where a proposal will have absolutely no effect, a nature of effect rating of ‘neutral’ will be provided, without a value rating. Where a proposal has an effect, but that effect is neutral, a nature of effect rating of ‘neutral’ will be provided with the appropriate value rating (e.g. Very Low, Neutral).

6 Assessment of landscape character effects of the project

6.1 The site and its localised setting are broadly characterised by a rural residential landscape, with predominantly single storey development located within large lots, interspersed with working rural land uses. Existing buildings and structures associated with the surrounding rural residential and working rural land are commonplace, with the site itself including a residential dwelling with multiple outbuildings.7

6.2 The design of the proposed Kura is not yet known, however, in my view, the proposed building bulk and form conditions,8 alongside the landscape recommendations9 will ensure that the underlying rural character of the site and the immediate setting is maintained, whilst providing a degree of flexibility for the future design of the Kura.

6.3 The proposed building bulk and form conditions and landscape recommendations will restrict building height to 7.5m on the ridgeline and 12m across other parts of the site, restrict site coverage to 25% (ie 25% in combined areas A1 and A2 and 25% across Area B), 10 provide setbacks of 5m – 10m from site boundaries and provide mitigation planting; ensuring that development within the site is of an acceptable size, scale and coverage to maintain the existing rural character of the site and its surrounds. The implementation of the landscape recommendations will ensure that the vegetated character of the site boundaries is maintained and enhanced.

6.4 In my view, the use of the site for a Kura will result in low adverse effects on landscape character.

6.5 The use of the site for a Kura will result in beneficial effects on landscape character within the site itself, appreciated by those people that will visit and utilise the site.11

7 Garage, car port, outside toilet, outbuildings, agricultural shed, etc. 8 Included within the evidence of Mr Ensor. 9 Updated landscape recommendations included within section 9 of my Evidence. 10 As identified on the Site Constraints Plan within the evidence of Mr Ensor. 11 Students, staff and parents.

6.6 A comprehensive assessment of landscape character effects of the project can be found in paragraphs 40 – 48 of the LVA.

7 Assessment of visual amenity effects of the project

Residents to the north of the site12

7.1 The topography of the site includes a localised ridgeline, which rises to approximately 10m above the SH30 corridor. The ridgeline, in combination with vegetation along the SH30 corridor, entirely contains views of the central and southern parts of the site when viewed from the north, with the exception of a view through a small break in vegetation to allow for site access.

7.2 Only development on top of the ridgeline, on the upper slopes of the ridgeline or along the northern boundary of the site would be visible when viewed from residences to the north. Any development on the lower-lying topography to the south of the ridgeline would be visually contained by the landform within the site.

7.3 Any proposed development would be designed in accordance with the building bulk and form conditions, which include height and site coverage restrictions, ensuring that the scale and extent of the Kura is in keeping with the underlying character and surrounding visual environment. Any proposed development on the ridgeline would be restricted to 7.5m in height and would be seen within the context of the existing development within the site and the two dwellings13 located on the ridgeline at 154 SH30 to the east. The site coverage restriction of 25% along the ridgeline and the northern boundary of the site will ensure that large groupings of buildings are avoided.

7.4 In my opinion, the use of the site for the proposed Kura will result in Very Low adverse effects on visual amenity from residents to the north.

7.5 A comprehensive assessment of visual amenity effects of the project from residences to the north can be found in paragraphs 50 – 54 of the LVA.

Residents to the east of the site

7.6 Lot 154 SH30 (‘Burn Hill’) is a rural residential lot located immediately east of the site. The lot includes two separate residences (as described above) which are located at a comparable elevation to the ridgeline within the northern part of the site. Both residences have views into the site and across the wider rural environment to the north and north west.

7.7 A group of mature trees in the south eastern corner of the site, in combination with the ridgeline in the northern part of the site assist in limiting views into the lower lying southern part of the site, however, views into the southern part of the site are still available, notably from the southernmost residence on 154 SH30.

12 North of SH30. Properties include 111, 111A, 111B and 137 SH30. 13 Main dwelling located to the north and minor dwelling located to the south.

7.8 Photographs taken from the boundary of site showing representative views from both residences are included within the Graphical Attachments in Annexure One to my evidence as Attachments SB21 and SB22.14

7.9 The landscape recommendations15 include additional planting in the eastern part of the site, with a ‘no build zone’ also provided along the eastern site boundary. The location and orientation of the planting will contain views into the southern part of the site, assist in screening existing and any future development on the ridgeline within the site, and will maintain views to the wider rural residential setting to the north.

7.10 The building bulk and form conditions will ensure that where views of the proposed Kura are available from the east, the height, scale and extent of development is consistent with the surrounding rural residential context.

7.11 Whilst views of any proposed Kura buildings on the ridgeline would still be perceptible, their height and site coverage in this area is limited and they would be seen beyond a planted corridor and within the context of the existing residential dwelling and outbuildings within the site; which alongside the wider network of rural residential development to the north of SH30, form a notable feature in the outlook from 154 SH30.

7.12 In my opinion, the introduction of a proposed Kura into the site will result in Low adverse effects on visual amenity from residents to the east.

7.13 A comprehensive assessment of visual amenity effects of the project from residences to the north can be found in paragraphs 55 - 60 of the LVA.

Users of SH30

7.14 The existing ridgeline within the northern part of the site entirely restricts views into the southern and central parts of the site from SH30.

7.15 Proposed development on the ridgeline and the more elevated slopes either side of the ridgeline will be visible from SH30, seen in passing and within the context of transient receptors. Any proposed development would be seen in place of the existing development within the site and within the context of the two dwellings and their associated ancillary buildings located on the ridgeline at 154 SH30 to the east.

7.16 Any proposed Kura would only be visible along a short section (approximately 600m in length) of SH30, with views of the proposal predominantly being limited to motorists travelling east.

7.17 The building bulk and form conditions, alongside the landscape recommendations will ensure that development maintains an offset from SH30 and that the vegetated character of the corridor is maintained.

7.18 In my opinion, the introduction of a proposed Kura into the site will result in Very Low adverse effects on visual amenity from users of SH30.

14 These viewpoint locations are taken from within the site boundary, and represent views from residences at ‘worst case’. 15 Updated landscape recommendations included within section 9 of my statement of evidence.

7.19 A comprehensive assessment of visual amenity effects of the project from residences to the north can be found in paragraphs 61 - 67 of the LVA.

8 Relevant statutory and planning considerations

8.1 Mr Ensor’s planning evidence considers the landscape and visual effects that I have identified in the context of the Rotorua District Plan (RDP). However, I note that:

(a) The site is not identified as being subject to any landscape designations or special landscape characteristics within the RDP or as provided for in s 6(b) of the RMA.

(b) Lake Rotorua16, its margins, and Mokoia Island17 are identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (ONFL) within the RDP. The topography, mature vegetation and existing rural residential and working rural land uses within the localised setting of the site ensures that the wider landscape character of the area, including the setting of the surrounding ONFLs of Lake Rotorua, its margins and Mokoia Island will be unaffected by the proposal.

9 Landscape recommendations

9.1 The lodged NoR was supported by building bulk and form conditions18 and landscape recommendations,19 which sought to provide quantifiable design parameters to the proposal.

9.2 Since that time I have reviewed the submissions in opposition and the Council planner’s s 42A report and discussed the feedback received from Ministry officers who have met with neighbouring residents. While I remain of the view that the conditions proposed with the NoR were appropriate and would have resulted in Low to Very Low landscape and visual amenity effects, I have further considered whether there are any refinements to the proposed conditions and landscape recommendations that would assist to mitigate the residents’ and Council planner’s concerns.

9.3 In my view the below revised landscape recommendation will further assist in maintaining the rural character of the site and integrating the proposed Kura into the visual environment.

(a) Mitigation planting and ‘no build zone’ along the eastern boundary of the site – The provision of a ‘no build zone’ along the eastern site boundary, and introduction of 5m wide belt of mitigation planting will assist in maintaining the rural character and rural outlook from the two residences at 154 SH30. The ‘no build zone’ would restrict any proposed development in this location, in accordance with the definition of ‘building’ within the RDP.20 Mitigation planting will be provided to assist in the visual integration of the proposed Kura on the ridgeline and in the

16 Located approximately 1.1km to the west of the site. 17 Located approximately 3.6km to the west of the site. 18 Prepared by Tonkin + Taylor. 19 Included within the lodged LVA. 20 Refer: Part 17 Definitions – Section 17.2 of the Rotorua Lakes District Plan.

northern parts of the site and maintain the rural outlook of residences to the east. The mitigation planting is not intended to entirely screen development but will, over time, mature to provide visual separation between 154 SH30 and any development within the site. The location and extent of the ‘no build zone’ and mitigation planting is illustrated on the Site Constraints Plan included within the evidence of Mr Ensor.

9.4 The building bulk and form conditions have also been revised and are included within the evidence of Mr Ensor, with reference to a supporting Site Constraints Plan. The revised building bulk and form conditions are summarised as:

(a) A maximum building height of 7.5m on the ridgeline within the centre of the site (identified as Area A1 on the illustrated conditions plan).

(b) A maximum building height of 12m on the remainder of the site (Areas A1 and B on the illustrated conditions plan).

(d) A building setback of 10m from the eastern and southern site boundaries.

(e) A building setback of 5m from the western site boundary.

(f) A maximum site coverage of 25% across individual areas of the site. This includes a maximum site coverage of 25% across Site Areas A1 and A2 combined, and a separate maximum site coverage of 25% across Area B.

9.5 The evidence of Mr Ensor also includes conditions which restrict lighting levels and require the preparation of a landscape plan prior the commencement of any construction on site.21

10 Assessment of submissions

10.1 Eight submissions22 have been made in opposition to the proposal. Six of these submissions include the same content and have been received from various residences to the north of the site. One submission has also been received from the residence to the east. My evidence responds to landscape related concerns raised in each submission, in turn, below.

Submission from Graham Bishop, Dorace Bishop and Loraine Bishop (residence at 154 SH30 to the east of the site)

Sites owned to the east and south and reverse sensitivity

10.2 The submitters own and occupy land immediately east and south of the site and have raised concerns about landscape and visual effects and reverse sensitivity.

10.3 Effects arising from the proposal on land immediately east of the site are assessed within the LVA and summarised within my evidence in section 7. As

21 As provided within Condition 7 within the s 42A report. 22 Including the email from Ngāti Rangiteaorere sent to Council prior to notification of the NoR, which is not discussed as it does not raise landscape and visual effects matters.

explained in section 7, in my view, the provision of a ‘no build zone’ along the eastern boundary, in combination with the proposed mitigation planting will assist in reducing effects on visual amenity and maintaining the rural outlook from 154 SH30. The proposal will result in low adverse effects on the visual amenity of the residences at 154 SH30.

10.4 The southern boundary of the site is defined by the Waiōhewa / Ōhuanui Stream corridor which is lined by intermittent mature trees, lower growing shrubs and marginal plants. The existing planting along the stream corridor forms a dense layer of vegetation which provides a strong level of visual and physical separation from the lower-lying rural land to the south and would largely contain views of the proposed Kura.

10.5 To my understanding, land to the south of the site is currently used for dry stock farming and is consistent with the wider land-use pattern. As dry stock farming is consistent with surrounding land uses, it is my opinion that the continued use of the pastoral land to the south of the site will not result in reverse sensitivity effects on landscape character or land-use.

10.6 Potential effects on reverse sensitivity are assessed further within the evidence of Mr Ensor.

Loss of views and ridgeline development

10.7 The submitters raise concerns with a perceived loss of views towards Lake Rotorua from the residences of 154 SH30 and visually prominent development on the ridgeline within the site.

10.8 Whilst the exact design and layout of the proposed Kura is not yet known, the parameters of the design have been considered within the building bulk and form conditions which restricts building height and site coverage. As discussed in section 9 above, any proposed development within the site which is located on the ridgeline would be restricted to 7.5m in height and would be restricted to a 25% coverage of the combined area of the ridgeline23 and its northern slopes.24 Any proposed development would be seen within the context of the existing cluster of development on the ridgeline within the site and the wider network of rural residential development to the north of SH30.

10.9 In my view, the landscape recommendation provided in section 9 of my evidence will assist in maintaining the rural outlook of residences on 154 SH30. The landscape recommendations provide a ‘no build zone’ along the eastern boundary of the site and includes mitigation planting which has been orientated to ensure that rural views to the north west and north are retained. Furthermore, the 25% coverage restriction on the ridgeline and the northern slopes will ensure that this part of the site is not ‘overdeveloped’.

10.10 In my view, the proposed conditions and landscape recommendations will ensure that any building on the ridgeline will not be visually dominant and will not have an undue adverse effect on the rural outlook towards the Lake.

23 Site Area A2 of the Conditions Plan within the evidence of Mr Ensor. 24 Site Area A1 of the Conditions Plan within the evidence of Mr Ensor.

Level of effect on amenity

10.11 The submitter has expressed a concern that the proposal will result in very high effects on the visual amenity of residences at 154 SH30.

10.12 As described within paragraphs 55 – 60 of the LVA and summarised at section 7 of my evidence, any proposed development within the site would be seen within the context of, or in place of, the existing structures within the site, which includes a residential dwelling, garages, an outdoor toilet, agricultural sheds and other outbuildings.

10.13 The additional site photographs included as Attachments SB20 and SB21 are representative viewpoints25 (taken within the site) of the views from the residences at 154 SH30. The viewpoints illustrate the visibility of the existing residential dwelling on the ridgeline within the site, which alongside the network of rural residential development to the north of SH30, forms a notable feature within the visual environment.

10.14 In my view, the building bulk and form conditions included within the evidence of Mr Ensor will ensure that the height, scale and extent of development is consistent with the surrounding environment. The conditions include building height restrictions on the ridgeline to 7.5m, and site coverage which will not exceed 25% in different areas of the site and, in my opinion, will ensure that the proposed development is not out of scale and that the site is not ‘overdeveloped’.

10.15 The ‘no build zone’ along the eastern boundary of the site means that that any proposed development will be set back from the site boundary and will not be visually overprominent. The inclusion of additional mitigation planting on a diagonal orientation across the ridgeline will assist in maintaining the rural outlook from 154 SH30 and will help to mitigate the visual effects of any proposed development on the ridgeline, visually integrating it into the receiving landscape.

10.16 As discussed in section 7 of my evidence, in my view, the proposal will result in Low adverse effects on the visual amenity of the residence of 154 SH30.

Effect of height on landscape character

10.17 The submitters have raised a concern that the potential maximum height of the proposed development will be out of context and out of character.

10.18 As outlined within paragraph 9 of the LVA and summarised at section 9 above, the building bulk and form conditions restrict development on the ridgeline to 7.5m in height, which is anticipated by the RDP height controls within the Rural 1 zone.

10.19 Development in the lower-lying parts of the site will be restricted to 12m in height, these locations are less visually prominent with development largely contained by topography and vegetation. Non-habitable buildings and structures up to 10m in height are also anticipated by the RDP, with medium and large-scale agricultural buildings and sheds being commonplace within the surrounding rural environment.

25 Illustrating a ‘worst case’ view.

10.20 The proposed maximum height restrictions are not intended to provide for multi-storey development within the site, with the 7.5m and 12m restrictions intended to allow for flexibility in design for elements such as a school hall and pou whenua.

10.21 In my opinion, development restricted to 7.5m on the ridgeline and 12m on the lower-lying parts of the site will not be out of context or out of character.

Boundary setbacks

10.22 The submitters have sought increased boundary setbacks to mitigate the effects of the Kura on their property.

10.23 In my view the proposed ‘no build zone’ and 10m offset along the common boundary of 154 SH30 and the site will achieve the mitigation sought by the submitters.

Submissions from residences to the north

Detailed design and layout

10.24 The submitters are concerned with the lack of a detailed layout for the Kura.

10.25 Whilst the exact design and layout of the proposed Kura is not yet known, the building bulk and form conditions, alongside the landscape recommendation within section 9 of my evidence provide a set of design parameters which restrict building height, site coverage, development offsets and mitigation planting. These parameters have been used to assess the potential effects of the designation and have been provided to ensure that the proposed Kura is appropriately designed and mitigated.

10.26 The provision of development conditions / controls and mitigation recommendations are common and well understood tools on designation applications.

Lighting

10.27 Whilst the design of the Kura and the requirement of any lighting within the site is not yet known, the provision of conditions to restrict lighting levels on the site which are commensurate with the provisions within the RDP will assist in maintaining the rural character of the site and the dark skies of the area. Proposed lighting conditions are provided within the evidence of Mr Ensor.

Visual impact

10.28 The submitters are concerned with the potential visual impact of the proposal.

10.29 The visual impact of the proposal on residences to the north is assessed on paragraphs 50 – 54 of the LVA and is summarised in section 7 of my evidence.

10.30 As discussed above, the ridgeline in the northern part of the site rises to approximately 10m above the SH30 corridor. This topographic feature provides highly effective natural screening of the lower parts of the site, which, in combination with vegetation along SH30 entirely contains views of the central

and southern parts of the site. Only development on top of the ridgeline, on the upper slopes of the ridgeline or along the northern boundary of the site would be visible when viewed from residences to the north.

10.31 In my view, the building bulk and form conditions will ensure that the scale and extent of development is in keeping with the underlying character and surrounding visual environment.

10.32 In my opinion, the introduction of a proposed Kura into the site will result in Very Low adverse effects on visual amenity from residents to the north.

11 Assessment of s 42A report

11.1 Effects on rural character and visual amenity are discussed within section 10.3 of the s 42A report with reference to the conditions proposed within the NOR.

11.2 The s 42A report raises concerns about the conditions within the NOR and the level to which they restrict development across the site, stating that:26 The site rises directly from the road frontage. I consider that the rural character of the environment would be substantially changed with the potential development of buildings across this area, as they could be constructed up to 7.5m from the road frontage, up to 12m in height and with no restriction on floor area. In addition, there is no restriction on the scale and extent of buildings along the higher part of the ridge, except for the standard 7.5m maximum height. Building on this higher part of the site will be highly visible and could result in buildings that are out of character with the area.

11.3 The conditions within the NOR and revised conditions included within the evidence of Mr Ensor have been prepared to allow flexibility to the future design of the site, whilst being broadly informed by the rules and provisions of the underlying Rural Zone 1. The rules and provisions of Rural Zone 1 provide for development within the site up to a height of 10m with a 10m offset from the site boundaries, providing that development does not exceed a maximum site coverage of 25%.

11.4 The s 42A report includes a summary of proposed additional controls at the end of section 10.3 of the s 42A report, with a more comprehensive list of Specific Performance Standards included as condition 8 within Appendix B of the report. The proposed Specific Performance Standards seek to provide a 25m offset from the northern site boundary, and restrict development on the ridgeline to one building with a maximum height of 6m and footprint of 200sqm.

11.5 It appears that intention of the Council planner’s proposed additional controls is to give surety that large groupings of buildings will not be located on more visually sensitive parts of the site27 and that the Rural Zone 1 boundary offsets will be maintained.

11.6 While I agree with the principle of providing additional controls over development within the more visually sensitive parts of the site, in my opinion, the proposed Specific Performance Standards are overly restrictive and do not

26 Chapter 10.3 of the s 42A report prepared by Ann Lloyd Nicholas. 27 Along the northern site boundary and the ridgeline.

reflect the existing character and environment of the site and its surrounds, or the effects that are intended to be addressed by the rules and provisions of the Rural Zone 1 for the following reasons:

(a) The Council planner has proposed a minimum setback to all buildings to the east of the site entrance from the northern site boundary of 25m. The rationale behind a 25m setback is not clear and imposes a greater level of restriction than the underlying rules and provisions of the District Plan Rural Zone 1 which requires a 10m setback from the northern site boundary. Development along SH30 within the surrounds of the site is commonplace within 25m of the highway boundary. The Minister has proposed a 7.5m setback and a site coverage restriction that would ensure that buildings are not concentrated in this part of the site while allowing for flexibility in the design of the Kura for elements such at gateway and entrance features.

(b) The Council planner has proposed a 10m setback from all remaining boundaries of the site. Whilst the Minister is proposing a 10m setback from the eastern and southern site boundaries, the requirement of a 10m offset from the western site boundary does not account for the specific qualities and attributes of the site itself. The western site boundary is defined by an evergreen shelterbelt which entirely visually contains the site from the west. A 5m development offset from the western site boundary would not result in any undue landscape or visual amenity effects and would allow flexibility in the design of the Kura on the more visually contained parts of the site.

(c) The Council planner has proposed a height restriction of 6m on the ridgeline, 7.5m across the remainder of the site with the exception of a pou whenua and school hall which could be constructed up to 12m in height. Whilst a 7.5m hight restriction on the ridgeline of the site is agreeable, it is unclear why a 7.5m height restriction is suggested across the remainder of the site, including to the south of the ridgeline where development would be visually contained. Development up to a height of 10m is anticipated under the rules and provisions of the Rural Zone 1, and large-scale agricultural buildings up to this height are commonplace within the surrounding working rural environment.

(d) The Council planner has proposed that development on the ridgeline should be restricted to one dwelling to be of a maximum height of 6m and footprint of 200sqm. The rationale behind this proposed condition is unclear. Clusters and groupings of buildings are currently located on the ridgeline, both within the site and the neighbouring lot to the east and form a notable part of the surrounding visual environment. These groupings of buildings include residential dwelling(s) and ancillary buildings. The residential dwelling within the site and the northernmost dwelling on the neighbouring lot have an approximate footprint of 250sqm. The underlying rules and provisions of Rural Zone 1 do not include any specific design controls which restricts development on the ridgeline and anticipates buildings up to 10m in height, with no maximum footprint across the site.

11.7 The revised building bulk and form conditions included within Annexure 2 of Mr Ensor’s evidence and summarised within Section 9 of my evidence have been

amended following review of the Specific Performance Standards within the s 42A report to try to capture the intent of the Council planner’s suggested amendments; but in a way that is more tailored to addressing the potential effects of concern while allowing flexibility in the design of the Kura.

11.8 My rationale for the proposed building bulk and form conditions is outlined below:

(a) A maximum building height of 7.5m on the ridgeline which is consistent with the RDP Height Controls for habitable buildings and to ensure that development on the ridgeline is not visually overprominent. The restriction in height on the ridgeline to 7.5m will ensure that any larger buildings or structures are located on lower elevated and less visually sensitive parts of the site.

(b) A maximum building height of 12m on the remainder of the site to allow flexibility in the design of the Kura for the provision of elements such as pou whenua and a school hall. The underlying Rural Zone 1 rules and provisions anticipate (unhabitable) buildings up to 10m in height, with large buildings and structures up to this height being commonplace in the surrounding working rural environment. The provision of 12m high elements such as pou whenua and a school hall on the less elevated and less visually sensitive parts of the site will not result in undue effects on landscape character or visual amenity.

(c) A building setback of 7.5m from the northern site boundary (with SH30) to allow for flexibility in design of the Kura. The provision of a 7.5m offset in combination with a 25% site coverage in this part of the site will ensure that development is not overprominent and a degree of separation is maintained from the road corridor.

(d) A building setback of 10m from the eastern site boundary which is consistent with the rules and provisions of the Rural Zone 1 and in conjunction with the landscape recommendations will provide separation between neighbouring residences and proposed future development.

(e) A building setback of 10 from the southern site boundary which is consistent with the rules and provisions of the Rural Zone 1. The existing vegetation along the southern boundary of the site within the Waiōhewa / Ōhuanui stream corridor provides a strong level of visual containment and separation to the site from the south.

(f) A building setback of 5m from the western site boundary. The western site boundary is defined by a mature evergreen shelterbelt which visually contains the site from the west. A 5m building offset from the western site boundary will not result in undue effects on landscape character or visual amenity and allow for the flexibility in design of the Kura in the more visually contained part of the site.

(g) A maximum site coverage of 25% across individual areas of the site. This includes a maximum site coverage of 25% across Areas A1 and A2 combined, and a separate maximum site coverage of 25% across Area B, giving surety that large groupings of buildings are not located on the ridgeline or more visually sensitive parts of the site.

12 Conclusions

12.1 In my opinion, the revised building bulk and form conditions, alongside the landscape recommendations included within section 9 of my evidence will ensure that the introduction of the Kura can be successfully accommodated within the site with less than minor effects on the receiving landscape character and visual environment.

Simon Leigh Button

14 June 2021

Annexure 1 - Graphic Attachments. Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua. Statement of Evidence of Simon Leigh Button.

14 June 2021 —

Land. People. Culture. Isthmus. vvv

Isthmus. Document record Issue Revision Author QA Date Final A SB BC / JM 14.06.21 Contents

Figure 1 - Site Context Plan 4 Figure 2 - Statutory Context Plan 5 Figure 3 - Viewpoint Location Map 6 Figure 4 - Viewpoint 1 8 Figure 5 - Viewpoint 2 10 Figure 6 - Viewpoint 3 12 Figure 7 - Viewpoint 4 14 Figure 8 - Viewpoint 5 16 Figure 9 - Viewpoint 6 18 Figure 10 - Viewpoint 7 20 Figure 11 - Viewpoint 8 21 Figure 12 - Viewpoint 9 22 Figure 13 - Viewpoint 10 24 Figure 14 - Viewpoint 11 26 Figure 15 - Viewpoint 12 27 Figure 16 - Viewpoint 13 28 Figure 17 - Viewpoint 14 30 Figure 18 - Viewpoint 15 32 Figure 19 - Viewpoint 16 33 Figure 20 - Viewpoint 17 34 Figure 21 - Viewpoint 18 36

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 3 Te Puea Orchard

Bellarosa B&B Rotorua Strawbale

Flemington Lake View B&B

Te Rerehau

Te Pōhue Bay SH30

Ōhuanui/Full Moon Countryside Ōhuanu Gardens and Country Suite i St Retreat re SH33 am Lake Rotorua Villa and Bungalow Brunswick Dr m Ō rea h St Tikitere uanui Gardens

SH30 TIKITERE

wa Stre Waiōhewa Waiōhe am Marae

SH30

i ō

e w a S t r e a m

3D Maze Kaitiaki Rotorua Adventures Figure 1 - Site Context Plan

N Legend. 0m 100m 200m 500m Site Boundary Scale 1:10,000

4 Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 Te Puea Orchard RD4

Bellarosa B&B Rotorua Strawbale RR1

Flemington Lake View B&B

RR2 Te Rerehau

RV1 RR2 Te Pōhue Bay SH30

Ōhuanui/Full Moon Countryside Ōhuanu Gardens and Country Suite i St Retreat re SH33 am Lake Rotorua Villa and Bungalow Brunswick Dr m Ō rea RD4 h St Tikitere uanui Gardens

SH30 TIKITERE

wa Stre Waiōhewa Waiōhe am Marae

SH30 RR1 W

i ō

e w a S t r e a m

3D Maze Kaitiaki Rotorua Adventures Figure 2 - Statutory Context Plan

N Legend. Operative Rotorua District Plan June 2016. RD4 - Residential 4 (Lakeside Settlements) Area identified as ‘Urban Area’ and ‘Low Density’ 0m 100m 200m 500m within district plan maps 101 and 102 Site Boundary RR1 - Rural 1 (Working Rural) RV1 - Reserve 1 (Conservation Reserve) Existing Roads RR2 - Rural 2 (Rural Lifestyle) Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes Scale 1:10,000

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 5 1

2 `

18 3 SH30

17 7 4 5

8 9 6 12 11 13

Tikitere 10 Gardens Ōhuanui Stream

Waiōhewa Stream

Figure 3 - Viewpoint Location Map

N Legend. 0m 20m 40m 100m # Additional Viewpoints Site Boundary Scale 1:2,000 # Original Viewpoints

6 Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 This page is intentionally left blank.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 7 Figure 4 - Viewpoint 1

View from State Highway 30 upon the approach to the site from the north east.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 9 Figure 5 - Viewpoint 2

View from State Highway 30 upon the approach to the site from the north.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 11 Figure 6 - Viewpoint 3

View from State Highway 30 immediately north of the site.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 13 Figure 7 - Viewpoint 4

View from State Highway 30 upon the approach to the site from the north west.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 15 Figure 8 - Viewpoint 5

View from State Highway 30 upon the approach to the site from the west.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 17 Figure 9 - Viewpoint 6

View from State Highway 30 upon the approach to the site from the west.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 19 Original Photo SB | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 11:42am 26 April 2019 | 1892875, 5780499 (NZTM) Figure 10 - Viewpoint 7 Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 298m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) & 34˚ vertical View from State Highway 30 immediately north of the site access.

20 Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 Original Photo SB | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 12:10pm 26 April 2019 | 1892869, 5780491 (NZTM) Figure 11 - Viewpoint 8 Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 298m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) & 34˚ vertical Internal site view from the northern site boundary, immediately south of the site access.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 21 Figure 12 - Viewpoint 9

Internal site view east of the existing residential dwelling

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 23 Figure 13 - Viewpoint 10

Internal site view looking south

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 25 Original Photo SB | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 01.00pm 26 April 2019 | 1892875, 5780456 (NZTM) Figure 14 - Viewpoint 11 Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 300m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) & 34˚ vertical Internal site view looking south from the agricultural access into the site

26 Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 Original Photo SB | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 12:53pm 26 April 2019 | 1892999, 5780481 (NZTM) Figure 15 - Viewpoint 12 Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 310m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) & 34˚ vertical Internal site view looking south west from elevated topography

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 27 Figure 16 - Viewpoint 13

Internal site view looking west from elevated topography

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 29 Figure 17 - Viewpoint 14

Internal site view looking north from the southern site boundary

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 31 Original Photo SB | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 12.34pm 26 April 2019 | 1892950, 5780328 (NZTM) Figure 18 - Viewpoint 15 Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 299m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) & 34˚ vertical View looking west along the Ōhuanui Stream corridor

32 Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 Original Photo SB | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 12:39pm 26 April 2019 | 1892880, 5780296 (NZTM) Figure 19 - Viewpoint 16 Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 300m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) & 34˚ vertical Internal site view looking north from the south western corner of the site

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 33 Figure 20 - Viewpoint 17

Internal view across the site from the eastern site boundary.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 35 Figure 21 - Viewpoint 18

Internal view across the site from the eastern site boundary.

Kura Kaupapa Māori, Tikitere, Rotorua | Ministry of Education | June 2021 37