Attachment a – Curriculum Vitae

ATTACHMENT A – CURRICULUM VITAE

CURRICULUM VITAE JANINE PEARSON

BSc (Hons), MA, Assoc.NZPI

RESOURCE PLANNER

Summary of Competencies Janine Pearson is a Resource Planner with 8.5 years’ experience in the fields of resource consenting and environmental assessment. Janine has strong skills in the management, preparation and submission of resource consent applications for a range of development projects, predominantly involving subdivision, stormwater, waste management and power developments. Janine also has in-depth experience in planning policy analysis and in undertaking stakeholder engagement, public and iwi consultation, AEE coordination and feasibility studies. Janine is a competent Project Manager who has managed multi-disciplinary teams on medium-sized consenting projects throughout the UK and more recently New Zealand.

Employment History Resource Planner, Birch Surveyors Ltd, Tauranga June 2015 – present Level 1, 115 The Strand, Tauranga 3141 Responsible for managing the resource consenting process for proposed developments and activities including rural and urban subdivisions, earthworks, stormwater discharges and the establishment of out of zone activities in the rural zone. Tasks include pre-application consultation with Council, affected parties and iwi, working closely with designers and external specialists to prepare a robust application and post-lodgement liaison with Council including the provision of further information and consent compliance. I am also responsible for the provision of advice to clients regarding the potential subdivision and development opportunities for their property and undertaking peer reviews of resource consent applications prepared by other author’s. Key Projects . Consenting of 36-lot residential subdivision and associated earthworks in Omokoroa, Tauranga . Provision of ongoing consenting advice and support to owner of significant rural landholdings in Matamata . Consenting of 22-lot residential subdivision and associated earthworks in Pukekohe, Auckland . Provision of ongoing consenting advice regarding a proposed fertiliser processing facility in the rural zone Environmental Planner, Jacobs New Zealand Ltd, Auckland March 2014 - February 2015 Jacobs, Level 2, Carlaw Park, 12-16 Nicholls Lane, Parnell, Auckland Project Manager for Jacobs' long-term contract with the Auckland Council Stormwater Unit involving the provision of ongoing consenting advice and support on proposed stormwater developments in Auckland – North Area. My role involved the management and coordination of the consenting of over 90 sub-projects and overcoming challenges associated with the resourcing of work during periods of peak workflow and managing inputs from a diverse range of people, including iwi. My other responsibilities included bid support and preparation, mentoring of graduate planners, provision of internal consenting advice to engineers and peer review of consenting deliverables. I also presented a paper at the Waste Management and Minimisation conference in Wellington in October 2014.

Page 1 of 3

Key Projects and Clients . Provision of consenting advice on stormwater development projects across Auckland - North Area (Auckland Council) . Preparation of consent application, AEE and OPW for proposed reservoir (Watercare Services Limited) . Consenting of substation upgrades (Vector Limited)

Senior Planning Consultant, SKM Enviros, London Sept 2010 - March 2014 Sinclair Knight Merz, New City Court, 20 St Thomas Street, SE1 9RS, London Project Manager of medium-sized UK planning projects for a mixture of private and public sector clients, predominantly in the fields of waste management and energy. This included the provision of planning support and advice to waste management operators in a competitive bidding process for local authority waste contracts. I worked closely with the Surrey County Council Waste Management Team for over 5 years providing ongoing planning advice and support. I also obtained experience working on international projects in West Africa and Papua New Guinea, working to IFC and World Bank standards. My other responsibilities included socio-economic assessments and planning applications in the fields of waste, renewables and other energy developments. Key Projects and Clients . Planning support in relation to security upgrade works at substation sites (National Grid) . Provision of ongoing planning advice on waste planning matters (Surrey County Council) . Planning support on bidding process for the north London waste procurement contract (Veolia) . Updating Environmental Management System (EMS) register (dock10 Limited) . Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for proposed rail line in northern Liberia associated with the Nimba Iron Ore mine (Euronimba Liberia Limited, joint venture between BHP Billiton and Newmont) . Peer Review of ESIA for proposed Frieda River mine and hydro-dam in Papua New Guinea (Xstrata Copper) . Planning support on bidding process for the Clyde Valley waste procurement contract (AmeyCespa) . Planning application and EIA for an Energy Recovery Facility in Newport (Veolia) . Planning application and EIA for the recovery, reclamation and restoration of the former Rossington colliery, Doncaster (RecyCoal)

Environmental Consultant , SKM Enviros (formerly Enviros Consulting Ltd), London Jan 2007 – Sept 2010 Sinclair Knight Merz, New City Court, 20 St Thomas Street, SE1 9RS, London Initially responsible for the provision of planning application support on large UK based infrastructure projects, I advanced to the project management of small to medium sized projects, predominantly in the fields of waste management and energy. Key activities undertaken included feasibility studies, alternative site assessments, preparation of Environmental Statement’s and supporting planning application documentation, planning policy assessments and stakeholder engagement. I also gained experience in undertaking socio-economic assessment as part of the EIA process. Key Projects and Clients . Provision of ongoing planning advice on waste planning matters (Surrey County Council) . Planning applications for leachate treatment projects across the south and south east (Viridor, Cemex) . Preparation of Site Allocations and Development Control Policies document for minerals and waste management: Issues and Options (Thurrock Council) . Staffordshire Energy from Waste project (Staffordshire County Council) . Salisbury Plain Eastern Infrastructure Project (Debut Services for the Ministry of Defence)

Page 2 of 3

Education and Qualifications 2008 - 2012 MA Town and Country Planning Result – Distinction Distance Learning Consortium led by The University of the West of England, Bristol 2003 - 2006 BSc (Hons) Human and Physical Geography Result – 2:1 The University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire 2004 - 2006 A-Level Certificates Result – Geography (A), Mathematics (B) and English Language and Literature (A) The Billericay School Sixth Form, Billericay, Essex 1999 - 2004 GCSE Certificates The Billericay School, Billericay, Essex

Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENT B – PLANS AND DRAWINGS

ISO 9001 Ph: 09 237 1111 Fax: 238 0033 PO Box 475, Pukekohe 2340 Property House 2A Wesley Street, Pukekohe Great South Road www.birchsurveyors.co.nz Ph: 07 577 1510 Fax: 1515 PO Box 13185, Tauranga 3141 [email protected] 115 The Strand, Tauranga Level 1 REGISTERED OWNERS TOTAL AREA COMPRISED IN ACTIVITY ZONING PLANNING MAP LOCAL AUTHORITY

Mill Road

Bernora Crescent Crescent Bernora Bombay Road Road Bombay

Lawrence Carter Drive - - PROJECT NAME

PAUP SUBMISSIONS #3068 #9128 Razorback Road Road Razorback Jayar Heights Heights Jayar

Paparata Road

Sellars Road Barber Road Road Barber Approved Drawn Designed Surveyed BSL Signed Signed Signed Signed Date Date Date Date Paparata Road REV. Project No. Scale Original Scale cm BY Hz: 1:5000 @ A3 DATE COMMENT 0 1 2 Drawing Name TITLE 3 4 5 CURRENT PAUP ZONING 10 SUBJECT TO FINAL SURVEY 15 20 ISO 9001 Ph: 09 237 1111 Fax: 238 0033 PO Box 475, Pukekohe 2340 Property House 2A Wesley Street, Pukekohe www.birchsurveyors.co.nz

Great South Road Ph: 07 577 1510 Fax: 1515 PO Box 13185, Tauranga 3141 [email protected] 115 The Strand, Tauranga Level 1 REGISTERED OWNERS TOTAL AREA COMPRISED IN ACTIVITY ZONING PLANNING MAP LOCAL AUTHORITY

Mill Road - -

PROJECT NAME Bernora Crescent Crescent Bernora Bombay Road Road Bombay

Lawrence Carter Drive

PAUP SUBMISSIONS #3068 #9128

Razorback Road Road Razorback Jayar Heights Heights Jayar

Paparata Road

Sellars Road Barber Road Road Barber Approved Drawn Designed Surveyed BSL Signed Signed Signed Signed Date Date Date Date REV. Project No. Scale Original Scale cm

Paparata Road BY Hz: 1:5000 @ A3 DATE COMMENT 0 1 2 Drawing Name TITLE 3 4 5 PROPOSED REZONING PLAN 10 SUBJECT TO FINAL SURVEY 15 20

ATTACHMENT C – REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPER FEEDBACK

Janine Pearson

Subject: FW: Enquiry re sales and demand in Bombay Village to inform Unitary Plan Hearing Evidence

From: Ina Murphy [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Sunday, 27 September 2015 9:34 a.m. To: Janine Pearson Subject: Fwd: Enquiry re sales and demand in Bombay Village to inform Unitary Plan Hearing Evidence

Hi Janine, hope the answers below help you in your quest. When your client is ready, I would love to have a chat with him please...

Best regards Ina Murphy

Good Afternoon Ina,

1. Is there a demand for property in Bombay Village? Information aro und property sales in the last 5 years and current property availability would be great.

See attachment, one sheet current sections for sale plus sales from the last 5 years. I've searched for land from 1500sqm to 5000sqm, from $ 200k to $ 450k.

2. What is the demand for? Council is requiring that all new lots in the village need to be a minimum size of 2,500m2. Based on interest and sales, do you think there is a demand for these larger blocks?

There is most certainly a demand for lifestyle blocks of this size, which is manageable by "Townies" who want to provide their families (often very large or living with in laws) with a good lifestyle. At the moment the majority of enquiries come from the Akl market as they have sold at a level, which affords them to build on larger blocks. Those families are middle aged with school children and good jobs. Commuting seems to be a compromise most customers are happy to make.

3. Can the village meet the demand through recent and current development or is there a need for future development? The proposed Unitary plan in its current form makes no provision for future residential growth around the village above and beyond the subdivisions that have taken place around the village in the last 5 years and those tha t are currently under development. Given your knowledge of demand, do you think there is a need to provide for growth in the village? If so how much growth? Can you provide any forecasts?

As agents we are frustrated right now as we cannot satisfy demand for larger blocks nor more residential blocks. There seem to be enough capital around to justify large purchases as those ones will be in the early millions, once built. Covenants don't seem to be an issue, which ensures good quality homes fitting well into the landscape. ( as long as they are reasonable and sympathetic to the land)

1 Kind Regards,

Janine

Janine Pearson

BSc(Hons), MA, Assoc.NZPI

Resource Planner │Tauranga

Birch Surveyors Ltd

Office: 07 577 1520 │

Address: Level 1, 115 The Strand │PO Box 13185 Tauranga 3141

Web: www.birchsurveyors.co.nz

Ina Murphy Residential Sales M 0274 769 866 AH 09 237 3166 Pukekohe 09 238 7019 F 09 238 7018 68 King Street, Pukekohe

Janine Pearson

Subject: FW: Enquiry re sales and demand in Bombay Village to inform Unitary Plan Hearing Evidence

From: Alex Ferguson [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Friday, 9 October 2015 5:34 p.m. To: Janine Pearson Cc: Andrew Ferguson Subject: RE: Enquiry re sales and demand in Bombay Village to inform Unitary Plan Hearing Evidence

Good Afternoon Janine,

Thank you for your email regarding development in the Bombay Village area.

Over the past 18 months, we have seen a dramatic rise in demand for quality bare sections of 2,000 – 8,000m² in size. We have seen that many residential buyers are viewing this land size as ideal to provide a space and privacy option without the extra work involved in a true lifestyle property. Given the fact that in Pukekohe many residential lots of between 800 – 1,000m² are selling for similar levels, to be able to purchase a land holding of this size becomes very attractive.

The general feedback we have received from prospective purchasers is that the Bombay area is convenient for motorway access, has a well regarded high decile school, has early childhood care, a number of sports clubs and is close to the planned commercial development near the off-ramp.

Pukekohe has grown exponentially in the past five years, and the Bombay area has benefited from this. There have been approximately 204 sales in the area in the last five years, of which 112 of these have been bare land, newly created or transferred titles which show a net migration into the area rather than general population movement.

Having sold the majority of bare lots in the area, we are still fielding enquiries on a daily basis about the availability of any existing lots or any new subdivisions in the pipeline. We feel, given the commercial activity of both Bombay and Pokeno, further development of the Bombay Village and it’s environs is both necessary and desirable.

Bombay, given its spectacular scenery, country feel and ease of motorway access, is seen as a relatively prestigious suburb to relocate to and as such is achieving premiums over other areas such as Pokeno, Tuakau, Patumahoe and Waiuku.

While Bombay School is highly regarded, it is one of a number of high decile schools in the locality. Others being Ramarama School, Ararimu School and Pukekohe East School.

In summary, we would have a conservative forecast, if zoning changes were made, of Bombay increasing in population by 30-50%.

If you require any further information, please don’t hesitate to contact Andrew (cc’d above, or by mobile – 0274 818 266)

Kind Regards,

Alex Ferguson Personal Assistant to Andrew Ferguson M +64 21 079 2847

Andrew Ferguson (Country / Lifestyle Sales) - D +64 9 238 9837 | M +64 274 818 266 Bayleys Counties, 8 Massey Avenue, Pukekohe, Auckland, New Zealand 1 292 Great South Road, Takanini, Auckland, New Zealand Bayleys Real Estate Ltd, Licensed under the REA Act 2008 www.bayleys.co.nz

2 ATTACHMENT D – LANDOWNER STATEMENTS

ATTACHMENT E – BOMBAY SCHOOL STATEMENT

10 September 2015

Janine Pearson Resource Planner│Tauranga Birch Surveyors Ltd Level 1, 115 The Strand PO Box 13185 Tauranga 3141

Dear Janine,

Our current roll is 373 we are expecting to reach 386 by the end of the year.

We only accept enrolments from within our zone. We can take up to 392 pupils in total. As you can see, we get pretty close to maximum roll at the end of the year.

It is unlikely that an additional 1520 homes will have a significant impact on our roll.

However, should the demand exceed 392 then MOE would need to build additional classrooms.

The reason we closed our outofzone roll was to allow us to cope with the anticipated inzone growth. To date we have been able to absorb the inzone growth. We anticipate that we can manage our roll to accommodate increases from current building projects.

Yours faithfully

Paul Petersen Principal

ATTACHMENT F – URBAN DESIGN EVIDENCE

BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE PREPARED BY WILL THRESHER On behalf of BN Balle and Sons Ltd (#9428)

IN RELATION TO TOPIC 017: RUB SOUTH Dated 11 November 2015

Introduction 1 My full name is William Frederick Thresher. I am Director of Thresher Associates Ltd, Urban Design, Landscape Architecture. I hold a post-graduate Diploma in Urban Design with distinction from Oxford Brookes University and a post-graduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture and a BA with Honours both from Manchester Metropolitan University.

2 I am a Registered member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA) and a chartered member of the Landscape Institute, UK. I have been a member of the NZILA National Executive, and have been a NZILA representative on Auckland Urban Design Panels since 2004. I have been a member of Unitec’s Landscape Advisory Committee, have been an external moderator for the Bachelor Landscape of Architecture and am an occasional guest critic. I am a member of the Urban Design Forum and was elected to the inaugural National Committee in 2009.

3 I have worked in Landscape Architectural practice since 1984, and qualified in Urban Design since 1996. I have been principal in my own practice, Thresher Associates Ltd., since 1998. The practice provides services in Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, working in both the commercial and public sectors.

4 This submission statement is prepared in support of the proposed rezoning of land from Rural Production to Single House as an extension to Bombay village, and provides evidence with regard to the urban design implications of the proposed change.

Scope 5 The scope of this statement is divided into the following parts: § Background and context § Existing and proposed planning framework § Proposed rezoning § Summary and conclusion

Background and context 6 The property comprises an area of 6.76ha and has been in the Balle family’s ownership for many years, being cultivated mainly for onions. In recent years, however, it has become difficult to cultivate and manage, with additional problems arising from reverse sensitivity.

7 In 2010, as part of Franklin District Council Plan Change 14 the submitters sought to include the land in the Bombay village extension area, and Thresher Associates were commissioned to prepare a longterm plan and urban design concept that looked at a potential framework for an urban village.

8 A subsequent addendum report developed a concept design for the land in their ownership to be integrated into the village plan with key projected outcomes being: a) to build upon the existing positive characteristics of the village to ensure a robust future through limited village extensions to provide sustainable patterns that are carefully designed, well-integrated and holistic; and b) to cluster future development in and around the existing Bombay village that would provide capacity to absorb growth in the district, protect the surrounding landscape (in lieu of ‘suburbanisation’ of rural landscapes through ad-hoc lifestyle developments), and achieve a compact village form which respects its rural setting.

9 The concept included the area currently proposed for rezoning and a masterplan for the village was developed to show how the village and land could be developed (Attachment A).

10 The current concept plan retains the features of the masterplan with some minor changes. The proposed plan for the Balle property envisages 19 single house residential lots all above 2,500m2. Access to the property would be provided via a new vehicle crossing on Paparata Road and it is proposed that the access road would generally follow the alignment of the overhead electricity transmission lines. This would enable the development potential of the site to be maximised while minimising the number of lots located within the development setback. All lots are proposed to be unserviced and suitably sized to allow for onsite wastewater treatment and disposal, stormwater management, and the provision of water tanks to provide a sustainable water supply. A 10m wide vegetation buffer is proposed along the eastern boundary of the property to afford a defined edge to the village.

Planning framework Operative Plan 11 The decision of Plan Change 14 (confirmed by way of Consent Order) ultimately created a new Village zone and overlay with a number of identified Village Growth Areas but excluded the subject site.

12 Part 17 of the operative District Plan (Franklin section) contains the objectives and policies for the rural and coastal areas and villages, differentiating the management of growth and activities in the rural context from the management of villages, which are intended to have a more urban character. A separate set of rules and assessment criteria are provided for each zone, village growth area, and village overlay area. The section is structured in parts, the relevant parts being Part 17A – Rural and Coastal Resource Management Strategic Objectives, Part 17B – Growth Management of the Villages, Part 17C – Rural and Coastal Zones, Part 17E – Management Areas. The site is zoned Rural.

13 In Part 17A there is a common set of strategic objectives for the rural and coastal areas and villages, which are focused around protecting and maintaining physical and natural resources and values while promoting sustainable growth – in specified areas including villages.

14 In Part 17B, a range of village issues and strategies are discussed, with different growth management tools applied to villages depending on the scale and context. Differentiating between serviced and unserviced areas is a key matter. Parts 17B.2 and 17B.3 set out the range of village growth objectives and the policies for achieving expansion or managed growth, as well as limiting intensification to protect existing character and natural features. Part 17B.4 and 17B.5 provide the growth methods for Village Growth Areas and Structure Plan Areas, including subdivision controls and concept plans. Reasons and explanation of the various objectives and policies in respect of the individual villages are contained in part 17.B.6.

15 With regard to Bombay, key matters are summarised as: § Although within an area of versatile land, areas nominated for further subdivision are already subdivided into smaller lots (half to 2ha), so that rural production is already compromised; § Land is within the settlement area and rural production use could result in land use conflict with residential occupiers; § An extension of the village north of Paparata Road is logical; § The proposed sites are designed to be self-sufficient by harvesting rainwater for water supply and by the disposal of waste water through bio-cycle drainage systems. The lot sizes are designed to provide the area necessary for this low impact design and are consistent in size with the large lot option in the village zone created by PC 14. Location of residential development relative to transmission lines will need to be considered.

16 Part 17C sets out key rural and coastal objectives and policies, including managing conflicts and amenities, and rural amenity and character. Part 17E divides the district into nine management areas and provides the objectives, policies and management methods for each area. Bombay is located within the Central Rural Management Area with key issues relating to protecting versatile land and rural production; avoiding inappropriate subdivision, use or development; protecting remaining natural values and retiring land where appropriate; and managing potential reverse sensitivity issues. Anticipated environmental outcomes are identified in 17E.2.5.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 17 The PAUP adopts the same zone pattern for the village, zoning the village growth areas as Single House zone. The subject site is currently zoned Rural Production. Unlike the Operative Plan, however, there is no differentiation between residential sites in the urban or rural zone, although there is a separate Rural and Coastal Settlement zone with different building controls and a differentiation between serviced and unserviced lots.

18 It is not clear on what basis villages have been selected for the Rural and Coastal Settlement zone, although both this zone and the Single House zone are contained under the Residential zone umbrella. The introduction to the Residential zones states that the Large Lot and the Coastal and Rural Settlement [sic] zones “provide for residential development that is low intensity and which reflects the land characteristics and/or service constraints of the location”. This compares with the other residential zones that are applied “in existing and future urban areas and provide for a variety of densities”, and the Single House zone, which “provides for low density suburban housing”.

19 It would appear, therefore, that the issues and management concerns in the Operative Plan are not transferred to the Proposed Plan, and that a suburban outcome is envisaged for the residential areas of Bombay.

20 Chapter D Part 1.1 provides the general objectives and policies for the residential zones, and Part 1.4 covers the objectives and policies of the Single House zone. Objectives and policies are generally focused on providing residential amenity for occupiers.

21 Chapter D Part 6 introduces the five rural zones, with the Rural Production zone described as the main zone for a wide range of rural production activities, similar to the Rural zone in the Operative Plan. The general objectives and policies for the rural zones (6.1), and the objectives and policies for the Rural Production zone (6.2) are similar to the objectives and policies in the Operative Plan, with key differences appearing to be more protection of ecosystem services and more enabling of non- rural productive activities providing that adverse effects are avoided. Specific objectives and policies are provided in 6.1.3 for Rural industries, services and non- residential activities.

Proposed rezoning 22 All of the Village Growth Areas provided for in the Operative Plan have been subdivided, with the majority of sites sold and a large number of houses already built, indicating strong demand.

23 The site proposed for rezoning abuts one of the subdivided areas (to the west) and, as described earlier, was included as part of the village masterplan I developed and discussed with Council. The reasons given for the site not being incorporated at the time were: § The site is beyond the 400m (walkable) radius of the centre of the village § It would “increase the linear extent of the village” § It is beyond the crest of the hill on the main road through the village § It has no visual connection with the village

24 I will address each of these in turn.

Walkable radius 25 The diagram below shows the walkable catchment illustrated in the Bombay report (January 2011). While the site is on the periphery of the circle and therefore outside the area normally given for a 5 minute walk, the distance from the site is not dissimilar to that from numerous other parts of the village, including the established residential area at the west end of Paparata Road (close to Bombay Road). In my opinion, therefore, excluding the site from residential development on this basis is nonsensical.

Figure 1 Walkable catchment

Village extent 26 Similar to my response with regard to the walkable catchment, this really makes no sense. Villages expand along their main roads, and providing this doesn’t result in lengthy ribbon development, such patterns of development are normal and appropriate. In this case, Paparata Road is the main road through the village and there is already some residential development in the area of the proposed rezoning. Consolidating residential development in this location would enable these residential lots to be incorporated into the village.

27 It is unfortunate that the adjacent subdivision that has already occurred was not co- ordinated to provide for a road linking Paparata Road with Barber Road, as proposed in the masterplan, but I do not regard the proposed subdivision plan as incompatible with the village form, and it is entirely compatible with the intended character of the suburban zone provided for in the PAUP.

Beyond the crest of the hill 28 It is true that the site entry would be beyond the crest of the hill when viewed from the west. Equally, however, the site entry is screened from view from the east and straddles the ridgeline so that it would form a comfortable edge to the village in my opinion. The existing dwelling and gully to the east of the site also form a natural development limit, while a proposed planted buffer would form an additional defensible edge to the village.

Figure 2 Topography showing ridgeline

Visual connection 29 It is difficult to reconcile this point with the physical form of the village where there are many places with no intervisibility. The village is located on a hilltop that is visible from many distant locations but where close views are frequently obstructed by vegetation and development. Roads are not laid out to follow the topography so that long views are limited (Paparata Road being an exception). As a consequence, it is not considered necessary that the site should have a visual connection with the village centre although it will clearly have a visual connection with the village through its shared boundary with the site to the west and dwellings to the north and east who I would envisage consider themselves living in Bombay village.

Summary and conclusion 30 To summarise, it is my opinion that the site would form a comfortable fit as part of the Bombay village and Single House zone for the following reasons: § The site is uneconomic as a productive activity and there is demand for additional residential sites within the village. § Increasing the area of single house sites will relieve pressure from subdivision of surrounding rural land. § The site is located on the main road through the village and abuts land similarly zoned and subdivided. § Expanding the village and increasing residential development will strengthen the existing and future community facilities and services. § The proposed buffer along the eastern edge will create a soft defensible edge and could potentially be used as a public walkway as well as incorporating stormwater treatment features.

Will Thresher Registered FNZILA landscape architect/urban designer

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT G – LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EVIDENCE

BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE PREPARED BY SALLY PEAKE On behalf of BN Balle Sons Ltd (#9428) TOPIC 017: RUB SOUTH Dated 11th November 2015

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

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

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

4 This submission statement is prepared in support of the proposed rezoning of land from Rural Production to Single House as an extension to Bombay Village, and provides evidence with regard to the landscape and visual effects of the proposed change. The submission acknowledges that the site would also be subject to the Additional Subdivision Control overlay requiring a minimum site size of 2500m2, as Bombay is unserviced village.

Scope 5 The scope of this statement is divided into the following parts:

• Background and context • Assessment review • Conclusion

increasingly difficult to manage as adjacent residential land has expanded (in terms of reverse sensitivity).

7 In 2010, as part of Franklin District Council Plan Change 14 the submitters sought to include the land in the village extension area, and Thresher Associates were commissioned to prepare a long term plan and urban design concept that looked at a potential framework for an urban village. In addition to the urban design report, a landscape and visual assessment of the proposed plan change was carried out that evaluated the potential effects of proposed mixed development in the village core together with residential expansion areas. The latter included two parcels of Balle land – a 14.26ha area between Barber and Bombay Roads that was incorporated into the Village zone, and the area that is the subject of the submission.

8 The landscape assessment and urban design reports provided a comprehensive description of Bombay and the surrounding environment, together with its regional and local planning context. The landscape assessment report also referenced a landscape study1 undertaken as part of the Franklin Rural Plan Change, which found that the landscape character unit within which the village is situated was rated moderate for its capacity to accommodate change, and had high/moderate development potential/appeal. Landscape values were assessed as: Aesthetic/Perceived ‘Landscape’ – Limited Natural Character – Low Cultural Landscape Character – Moderate

9 The study identified the village as having Moderate Development Potential “due to limited landscape sensitivities and moderate development potential - perhaps including landscape rehabilitation”.

10 The results of the landscape and visual assessment confirmed this potential and determined that, from a landscape change perspective, the proposal would have no adverse effects and there was potential for positive effects. The assessment of visual effects looked at effects from a range of viewpoints and effects for existing residents. Views and effects varied in relation to distance, context (i.e. moving or static), orientation and the focus of view/degree of view blockage. Overall, the report concluded that there would be potentially moderate effects resulting from

1 The Franklin Rural Plan Change Study, Landscape Report by Stephen Brown (2002)

development south of Paparata Road, but effects would be nil to low for development north of Paparata Road.

Assessment review 11 For this submission statement I have carried out a further review of the potential visual effects that could be expected from rezoning the subject site to Residential - Single House, with reference to the Concept Plan prepared by Birch Surveyors (Attachment A).

12 The concept plan indicates a total of 19 residential lots on sites with a minimum size of 2500m2. All lots have direct street access, with an entry off Paparata Road following the route of the existing transmission line. A loop road provides vehicle and pedestrian access, with an additional pedestrian accessway between 85 & 89 Paparata Road. A proposed 10m wide planted buffer along the eastern edge will create a soft edge and screen, and could potentially be used as a public walkway and/or incorporate stormwater treatment features.

13 The images in Attachment B are representative of available views from public places in and around Bombay. They are discussed and rated in turn (with reference to the methodology in Attachment C).

Ararimu Road 14 There are several available views for people travelling on Ararimu Road, as well as potential views from adjacent residents. These views vary in relation to rural and natural character depending on the degree of intervening development but are generally expansive, with Puketutu and Bombay Hills forming a feature in the background.

15 In this view, the site is visible but difficult to discern due to distance (approximately 3.5km). Existing and planned development would form a background (together with vegetation and landform), and the proposed buffer would partly screen and soften views of the site. Visual effects are rated very low.

Motorway (Ramarama overbridge) 16 There are infrequent views of Bombay travelling south until shortly after the Drury service station when the hill and village are continuously visible as a concentrated

collection of fields and buildings, strongly defined by the landscape background of landform and vegetation.

17 The view from Ramarama bridge (Ararimu Road) is representative of these views and shows that the site is not noticeable within the view. In addition views for drivers will be transient and secondary to the road environment so that there will be no perceived change and visual effects are rated as nil or benign.

18 The site will not be visible for drivers travelling north.

Great South Road 19 The land rises from this viewpoint with development and the village core nestled into the landscape with a vegetated background and a foreground of fields. New and existing buildings are in the middle ground with pylons prominent on the skyline. The site is approximately 1.4km from the road and screened from view so that there will be no visual effects.

Mile Road 20 This view is approximately 400m from the site and immediately adjacent to new development (to the south and west). The land slopes up towards the site with field patterns defined by hedging. Dwellings are visible on the skyline. The site is behind the existing hedging which would screen dwellings on the site although some roofs could be visible.

21 With further development of the approved subdivisions it is likely that some of the existing vegetation will be removed, opening up views of the subject site, but this would be seen in the context of other new development. Visual effects are therefore rated low or benign, depending on the rate of change.

Wootten Road 22 This viewpoint is more distant at approximately 700m and the foreground land is planned to stay in productive use. Notwithstanding this, there are dwellings in the view, including on the skyline. There is potential for development on the site to be visible on the skyline, although most dwellings would be at a lower elevation. As the site would only take up a small proportion of the view, and dwellings would only be visible behind existing dwellings and vegetation, however, visual effects are rated low.

Paparata Road 23 Viewpoint 6 shows the frontage of the site together with views over the site towards the northwest. In this view it can be seen that there is a local ridgeline that effectively divides the site so that dwellings would have a different aspect in different parts. Only dwellings in the upper part of the site would be visible to drivers and pedestrians on Paparata Road and these would be interspersed with views of other dwellings along the road frontage. Visual effects from this viewpoint is rated moderate-low as there would be some blockage of distant rural views.

24 Views 7 and 8 indicate views towards the site from the east and west, and show that the site is situated in a saddle and will not be visible on these approaches.

25 There is a sequence of views of the village from the higher part of Paparata Road close to the intersection with Pinnacle Hill Road (Viewpoint 9), with views being lost as drivers descend the hill. From this distance (approx. 2.1km), dwellings are visible on the ridgeline but fields and farm buildings in the foreground and middle ground are more prominent. The site is not visible from this location and any roofs would be at a lower elevation than existing buildings. Visual effects are therefore rated negligible.

Pinnacle Hill Road 26 From Pinnacle Hill Road the village is barely visible on the crest of the hillside to the right of Puketutu in the image. Fields and scattered rural development are visible on the slopes of the hill but there is little detail visible due to distance (approx. 3.4km). The position of the site is similar to the previous view. Visual effects are rated nil.

Conclusion 27 Based on the previous study of Bombay and my review of the visual effects of the site proposed for rezoning, I conclude that the site is suitable for inclusion as an expansion to the village within a Single House zone, and there will be no unacceptable landscape or visual effects arising.

Sally Peake Registered FNZILA landscape architect

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT C

Landscape and Visual Effects Methodology

The RMA provisions relevant to landscape assessment are listed below. The method of assessing landscape and visual effects is based on best practice1 and considers landscape and visual effects in terms of three interrelated assessment categories; biophysical and landscape quality, visual amenity, and landscape character. The table below shows the relationship between the relevant RMA provisions and categories used in the assessment of effects.

RMA Provision Landscape and visual assessment category

s 6(a);Effects on the natural character of the Biophysical/Landscape Quality coastal environment, wetlands and rivers and Landscape Character their margins

6(b) Effects on outstanding natural features and Biophysical/Landscape Quality landscapes Landscape Character

Visual Amenity

s 7(c) Effects on amenity values; and Visual amenity

s 7(f) Effects on the quality of the environment Biophysical/Landscape Quality

Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in

its character and how this is experienced. This may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the

landscape.

Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of

changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with

respect to visual amenity.

Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked, procedures.

Assessment of effects The assessment of landscape and visual effects focuses on effects in relation to three interrelated aspects – biophysical change (in relation to landscape quality), visual amenity, and landscape character. The landscape and visual effects of the proposal are assessed in relation to the existing environment, and consideration given to these three factors. The magnitude of the effects on each of these categories is also evaluated.

1 NZILA Best Practice Note : Landscape Assessment and Sustainable management 10.1, December 2010 http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/planning-tools/land/landscape/ Biophysical effects The assessment of biophysical effects considers the extent and significance of modifications to landform, waterways and vegetation. Particular attention is paid to those landscape features identified with regional or local significance.

The scale for assessing biophysical change used is set out below:

Extreme - Loss of key feature/attributes Very high - Fundamental alteration to key feature/attributes

High – Major alteration to key feature/attributes

Moderate – Noticeable alteration to key feature/attributes (partially changed) Low - Minor change to landscape, with no noticeable change to key feature/attribute (i.e. similar to before)

Very low - Slight change, with no change to any key feature/attribute and change barely distinguishable

Negligible - No discernable change

Landscape character effects Landscape character is the distinctive combination of landscape attributes that gives an area its identity, and is derived from a combination of landform, land cover and land use. The effects on landscape character relate to changes in land use, (new or different activities); changes to existing patterns and elements in the landscape such as vegetation, waterbodies, landform, and building patterns; and the introduction of new elements and patterns including structures and paving and the various associated processes such as earthworks.

The scale used to determine landscape character change is set out below.

Extreme - Significant change affecting the overall landscape character

Very high - Fundamental alteration to key features/ attributes, character largely changed (with little ability to mitigate effects)

High - Alteration to several key elements or features/ attributes, major change to character and composition.

Moderate - Readily noticeable alteration to key element/s, feature/s or attribute/s, with character and composition partially changed

Low – Small amount of change to underlying character and composition, similar to before Very low - Very slight change to landscape character, change barely distinguishable

Negligible - No discernable change of character

Visual amenity effects Visual amenity is a component of the overall amenity of a place and therefore contributes to peoples’ appreciation of the pleasantness and aesthetic coherence of the environment. This aspect considers the effects of the visual change for each alignment in relation to the viewing audience.

Contributing factors that affect the relative magnitude of effect include:

 Size of viewing audience (higher/lower density populations; town centre)  Proximity to viewpoints/routes

 Type/size of view (orientation; elevation; peripheral/central)

 Visibility of buildings and structures

 Outlook (eg proposal blocks desirable views)

The scale used to determine the magnitude of change to visual amenity is set out in the table below.

Extreme - Proposal may dominate/ obscure views for large viewing audience.

Very high - Proposal is prominent and would be a focus of views for a large viewing audience or within close proximity of residences (eg 100m)

High - Proposal is likely to be a major element of view for a large number of people and/or be a focus of view for residents Moderate - Proposal is likely to form a visible and recognizable new element within the overall scene

Low - Proposal is likely to be either a limited component of a wider scene, and/or make little difference to the overall scene (i.e. may be missed by casual observer)

Very low - Proposal will form a very limited component of the wider scene and/or be viewed from a considerable distance

Negligible - Proposal will not be identifiable within available views

Appropriate selection of representative viewpoints as well as an assessment of the anticipated change to views may form part of the visual assessment process.

ATTACHMENT H – RPS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ASSESSMENT

Assessment of Submissions against RPS B2.5 Policy 2

Manage development in unserviced rural and Balle N and Sons Ltd (#9428) D & J Sutherland (#3068) coastal villages in a manner that: a. provides for limited Yes – the submissions that are the subject of my evidence are not proposing business uses. However Bombay Village business development on a already provides for limited business development that serves the local community and in addition, whilst not directly scale that serves the relevant to the submissions that are the subject of my evidence, local landowners Montilla Properties Limited (Lot 1 DP surrounding rural community 124783, 253 Mill Road) have also contacted Birch Surveyors to assert their support of the rezoning of the Sutherland (and Balle) property along with the provision of further services and rural business support activities within the village to support growth and to provide for locally based employment (refer to further submission #1624). Therefore should there be a need for further business activities within Bombay Village to support growth, there are local landowners who would be willing to provide their land for further limited business development. b. provides opportunities for Yes – Bombay Village already comprises opportunities for local recreation to a scale that is considered to be local recreation appropriate to serve the village. Within the PAUP, a number of areas within the village are zoned for Public Open Space purposes including for both informal recreation and sport and active recreation purposes. The village already comprises a Rugby and Football Club with associated playing fields, a Tennis Club, a Scout Hall and two areas for informal recreation, one at the corner of Mill Road and Razorback Road and one on Paparata Road to the rear of the Scout Hall. c. reinforces and enhances Yes - it is considered that the development of both sites for residential use would form an appropriate and logical the defined natural and extension to the existing Bombay Village and would reinforce and enhance rural values associated with Bombay Village. physical characteristics, including rural and coastal The concept development plan prepared for the Balle’s site shows that it can be developed in an appropriate manner values associated with the which can achieve a high quality built form. The evidence prepared by Will Thresher and Sally Peake regarding urban village design and landscape and visual aspects included as attachments to my evidence demonstrate that the development of the Balle’s site for residential use would be fully in accordance with this objective.

Both sites would require subdivision, and possibly land use consent and as part of this process, would be subject to a detailed design and assessment process to ensure the development can achieve high environmental performance and a high quality built environment. d. encourages development Yes – see Section 4 of my planning evidence. of existing vacant lots e. enables papakāinga, Not applicable as neither site comprises Maori land. Manage development in unserviced rural and Balle N and Sons Ltd (#9428) D & J Sutherland (#3068) coastal villages in a manner that: marae developments, customary use, cultural activities and appropriate commercial activities on Maori land and on other land where Mana Whenua have collective ownership interest.

Assessment of Submissions against RPS B2.5 Policy 1

Require proposals to expand existing rural and coastal towns and serviced Balle N and Sons Ltd (#9428) D & J Sutherland (#3068) villages that do not yet have a RUB, and have: safe and efficient transport Yes – there is existing capacity in the roading network at Bombay and both sites have excellent links to State Highway 1 connections and nearby urban centres such as Pukekohe. Whilst the village is not currently provided with public transport links, the village is only a 15 minute drive to Pukekohe where bus and train links into Auckland CBD are provided. Both sites are also located within walking distance of Bombay Village centre and it is considered that appropriate extensions to the existing pedestrian walkways can be provided to serve both sites. and efficient and well- No – however whilst it is recognised that Bombay is an unserviced village and there are no plans to service the village performing wastewater with wastewater infrastructure, the PAUP provides specific development rules for both serviced and unserviced villages networks with additional or therefore it is considered that this should not be a reason to prevent growth in the village. Bombay is proposed to be planned and funded capacity subject to the Additional Subdivision Control overlay requiring all new residential lots to be greater than 2,500m2 in order to allow sufficient space to provide onsite services including wastewater, stormwater and water supply. The area has good soakage and both sites can provide lots over 2,500m2 to facilitate the provision of self-sufficient and sustainable residential properties. Therefore whilst the submissions don’t technically accord with this objective, it is considered that appropriate alternative measures can be implemented on both sites to ensure efficient and well- performing onsite wastewater treatment and disposal. Require proposals to expand existing rural and coastal towns and serviced Balle N and Sons Ltd (#9428) D & J Sutherland (#3068) villages that do not yet have a RUB, and have: to be developed in a

manner that: a. achieves an orderly and Yes – both sites are contiguous with the existing residential zones forming the edge of Bombay Village. contiguous connection with the existing settlement b. achieves a clear break Yes – Bombay Village is located well away from other nearby towns and village. The closest towns/villages are between other nearby towns Pukekohe located approx 12km to the west, Buckland located approx 8km to the south west, Paerata located approx and villages 9km to the north west, Ramarama located approx 6km to north and Pokeno located approx 7km to the south. c. incorporates affordable, N/A – whilst the village is unserviced and there are no plans to service the village, as referred to earlier he PAUP feasible, sequenced and provides specific development rules for both serviced and unserviced villages therefore it is considered that this should funded infrastructure not be a reason to prevent growth in the village. Bombay is proposed to be subject to the Additional Subdivision including significant Control overlay requiring all new residential lots to be greater than 2,500m2 in order to allow sufficient space to infrastructure provide onsite services including wastewater, stormwater and water supply. Therefore whilst the submissions don’t technically accord with this objective, it is considered that this should not be a reason to prevent the growth of subserviced villages and that both sites are able to develop lots which can provide efficient and well performing services. d.provides high resilience to Yes – neither property is subject to significant natural hazards. future risks, avoiding locations with significant natural hazard risks for urban development e. avoids urbanisation of elite Yes – whilst both sites contain some versatile soils, both sites face challenges with cultivating the land as a result of the and prime land, and presence of large volcanic boulders near the surface which makes cultivation difficult and damages machinery. In maintains adequate addition, the Balle site has challenges with soil erosion resulting from the sloping topography of the site which is a separation between continuous problem. Both sites are also increasingly closed in by residential development which makes it challenging to incompatible land uses undertake any sort of cropping activity on the sites in terms of reverse sensitivity effects such as noise, dust and spray drift. On this basis, it is considered that the loss of versatile soils should be weighed up against the proximity of the sites to existing incompatible land uses and other difficulties associated with undertaking cropping activities on both sites. In the long term neither site is viable for ongoing cropping activities and an alternative productive use of these sites, such Require proposals to expand existing rural and coastal towns and serviced Balle N and Sons Ltd (#9428) D & J Sutherland (#3068) villages that do not yet have a RUB, and have: as residential, is considered necessary and appropriate. f. achieves high Yes – it is considered that the development of both sites for residential use would form an appropriate and logical environmental performance extension to the existing Bombay Village. The concept development plan prepared for the Balle’s site shows that it can and a high quality built be developed in an appropriate manner which can achieve a high quality built form. Both sites would require environment subdivision, and possibly land use consent and as part of this process, would be subject to a detailed design to ensure the development can achieve high environmental performance and a high quality built environment. g. reinforces and enhances Yes – again this assessment would be undertaken in detail as part of the resource consent process. However the natural and physical landscape evidence supplied by Sally Peake in relation to the Balle property indicates that the development of the site characteristics, including the for residential use would be an appropriate fit with the existing natural and rural environment and character. Neither coastal environment site is located in close proximity to the coastal environment. h. has good accessibility and Yes – both sites are served with excellent access to the road network and should any safety improvements be required improves transport options, to the immediate local road network, these would be identified as part of the design process. Both sites are within including walking and cycling walking distance of Bombay Village Centre and again, should extensions to the existing pedestrian network be required, this would be identified through the design process in consultation with Council. i. enables papakainga, Not applicable as neither site comprises Maori land. marae developments, customary use, cultural activities and appropriate commercial activities on Maori land and other land where Mana Whenua have collective ownership interest j. is in accordance with the Yes – elements of Appendix 1.1 have been addressed in my evidence however it is considered that the preparation of a structure plan guidelines in full structure plan is not required at this stage and should not be a determining factor in the consideration of these Appendix 1.1 submissions. The submissions propose the rezoning of the sites as part of the plan preparation process and do not involve a plan change process. In any case, many of the structure plan issues have been considered and addressed in my planning evidence. It is also important to note that Bombay Village is recognised to be an unserviced village and both sites would be unserviced, therefore there is not the requirement to consider the servicing network at a spatial Require proposals to expand existing rural and coastal towns and serviced Balle N and Sons Ltd (#9428) D & J Sutherland (#3068) villages that do not yet have a RUB, and have: development level. In terms of transport, a detailed transport assessment was undertaken for the expansion of the village as part of the Plan Change 14 process which whilst identifying a number of general road improvements, concluded that the existing road network in the vicinity of the village is capable of accommodating the traffic generates by Plan Change 14 and any proposed expansion (including the Balle Property). k. avoids where practicable Yes – whilst an electricity transmission corridor crosses the Yes – the site is not subject to any of the specified areas. urban development within: south western corner of the site, as shown in the concept i. areas with significant development plan for the site, this can be appropriately environmental, heritage, accommodated to ensure no dwellings, and only a small natural character or number of lots, will be located within the development landscape values, including setback. Appropriate Building Line Restrictions and areas identified in easements can also be placed on titles to ensure the Appendices 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 6.2, ongoing ability to maintain and operate the overhead lines. and 9.1 and land governed It should be noted that the adjoining site to the west by the Waitakere Ranges across which the electricity transmission corridor also runs Heritage Area Act ii. scheduled sites and places is zoned residential and has been subdivided for residential of significance and value to purposes therefore it is considered that the presence of Mana Whenua the electricity transmission corridor across the site should iii. areas prone to natural not be reason to not support the submission. Detailed hazards design and consultation would take place as part of the iv. land affected by coastal resource consent process and appropriate mitigation can inundation and projected sea be implemented to accommodate the electricity level rise transmission corridor. v. areas with significant mineral resources vi. areas within an electricity transmission corridor