BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of Topic 020 Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report STATEMENT OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF STEPHEN KENNETH BROWN ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 25 MAY 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS: SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 4 CODE OF CONDUCT 6 SCOPE 6 CONTEXT & THE HISTORY OF VIEWSHAFT PROTECTION 7 Context 7 History of Viewshaft Protection 12 Review of the Volcanic Viewshafts 2001-5 16 Other Recent Amendments 19 The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 21 HEIGHT SENSITIVE AREAS 22 VIEWSHAFT SELECTION 25 Viewshaft Trial Evaluations 31 Key Values 32 Summary 39 Viewshaft W13 39 Conclusion 41 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 42 SUBMISSIONS 47 CONCLUSION 49 APPENDIX A: 2013 Report - Review of Viewshafts APPENDIX B: 2013 Review Report - Viewshaft B6 APPENDIX C: 2012 Report - Review of Height Sensitive Areas APPENDIX D: Evaluation of Six Viewshafts - A08, E10, E11, T01, W12 & W26 2 SUMMARY 1. Hearing Topic 020 covers (amongst other matters) district plan provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) relating to volcanic viewshafts (viewshafts) and height sensitive areas (HSAs). 2. A number of submissions support the PAUP viewshafts and HSA mapping and provisions. However, the submission from The Warehouse seeks deletion of the viewshaft controls in their entirety, while many submissions, such as those from Housing NZ Corporation (HNZ), oppose the mapped viewshafts and HSAs because of their impact on individual properties and areas of potential development. In a related vein, many submissions seek a relaxation of the proposed Volcanic Viewshaft and HSA rules. Mr Peter Reaburn (also appearing for Auckland Council) explains the nature of many of the key submissions in his statement. 3. In line with the application made by HNZ, the evidence for this topic focuses on both proposed district plan provisions, and the significance of the individual viewshafts subject to submissions together with the HSA mapping. Procedural Minute No.12, from the Chairman of the Independent Hearings Panel, indicates that the viewshafts to be addressed in this respect shall comprise a sample of six that are currently found in the PAUP, so that the veracity of all of the proposed viewshafts can be tested in an indicative fashion. As a result, much of this statement addresses the core values of the viewshafts and the importance of them, both individually and collectively, in relation to Auckland’s natural heritage, landscape character and identity. I conclude that all of the viewshafts in accord with the IHP Minute this sample addressed are ‘regionally significant’. 4. Finally, I address some of the key issues that pertain to management and protection of the cones via the viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas. I conclude that the proposed (revised as a result of mediation) are both appropriate and necessary. They are also aligned with the objectives and policies already proposed for the PAUP within Chapter 4.3.2 of the RPS, although both the review of those provisions and related submissions have resulted in some amendments 3 to the proposed viewshaft and HSA rules that are set out in Attachment B to Mr Reaburn’s evidence. He discusses these matters in some detail. INTRODUCTION 5. My name is Stephen Kenneth Brown. I am giving evidence in these proceedings on behalf of the Auckland Council (Council). I hold a Bachelor of Town Planning degree and a post-graduate Diploma of Landscape Architecture. I am a Fellow and past president of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, an Affiliate Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute, and have practised as a landscape architect for 32 years. 6. During that period, the great majority of my professional practice has focussed on landscape assessment and planning. This has included evaluating the landscape effects associated with a wide variety of coastal development projects, including those of: . Various Waitemata Harbour crossing options in 2002/3 (for OPUS and NZTA); . the current Waterview Connection upgrade of S16 and the North- western Motorway (for Transit NZ); . the Sandspit Marina proposal (for Auckland Council); . the ALPURT B2 Waiwera River crossing on SH1 (for the Auckland Regional Council); . the proposed Weiti River bridge and highway (for the Auckland Regional Council); . the Southdown Power Station (Mercury Energy / Transalta); . the Papamoa Gateway Project (for Tauranga City Council); . the Marsden Point port development (for Northport); and . a number of marina proposals in the early 1990s for the Americas Cup Planning Authority. 7. More strategically, I have undertaken and participated in many landscape assessments aimed at identifying landscape values at the district and regional levels. Of relevance to the current application, I have twice undertaken landscape 4 assessments of the Auckland Region (in 1982-4 and 2002-13), and – among others – have also been responsible for studies of: . the West Coast Region - Buller / Grey / Westland Districts: Landscape & Natural Character (2012); . Buller District: Landscape & Natural Character (2010/2011) – for Meridian Energy Ltd in relation to the Mokihinui River appeals; . the Waikato Region: peer review of Outstanding Natural Landscapes (2011/12); . The Auckland Region: Outstanding Natural Features – Geological / Geomorphological (2012); . the Auckland Region: Amenity Values (2012); . the Auckland Region: Natural Character (2010 & 2012/13); . the Auckland Region: Landscape (2001-8); . Otorohanga District (2009/10); . the Horizons (Manawatu Wanganui) Region: Landscape – for Mighty River Power in relation to the Turitea Wind Farm application (2009/10); . the Thames Coromandel District: Landscape and Natural Character (2006-12); . the Kawhia and Aotea Harbour catchments: Landscape (2006); . the Mahia Peninsula and Wairoa District: Landscape (2003); . Waitakere City's Northern Strategic Growth Area Study: Landscape (2000); . North Shore City: Landscape (1997-2000); . Eastern Manukau City: Landscape (1995); . Auckland’s urban coastlines: Landscape (1995); . Whangarei District: Landscape (1994 & 2005); . the Far North District: Landscape (1994/5); . Waiheke Island: Landscape (1988); . the Auckland Region: Landscape (1982-4). 8. In 2006 I was also part of a team under the ‘umbrella’ of Urbis Ltd that was awarded the (UK) Landscape Institute’s Strategic Planning Award for the “Landscape Value Mapping Study of Hong Kong”. My contribution included development of an assessment method and evaluation criteria that were employed in that study. 5 9. For these proceedings, I have been engaged by Auckland Council (the Council) to present evidence in relation to the identification of Auckland’s volcanic viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas – as part of Topic 20. I also appear in support of the proposed PAUP provisions, which set out to protect both the viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas. 10. I also previously appeared at the RPS hearing in relation to Topic 010, which addressed the RPS and matters relating to Volcanic Viewshafts and Height Sensitive Areas. I was part of the Council team that addressed all Natural Heritage values, objectives and policies at that stage, and am now again providing expert evidence on behalf of the team. CODE OF CONDUCT 11. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. SCOPE 12. My statement addresses the following matters: . Context & History: the significance of Auckland’s volcanic cone field and views of the individual maunga at the regional level, together with the importance of more localised views and connections with them for the Region’s communities. This section of my statement necessarily retraces some of the ‘ground’ previously covered in my statement on Chapter B4.3.2, including a snapshot of the history of viewshaft and HSA protection across the Auckland Region. Viewshaft Selection: the selection / identification of viewshafts from 1976 (and the inception of the viewshafts and related controls) through to PC8 and 6 PM339 has revolved around whether or not individual viewshafts are ‘regionally significant’ – with reference to a range of assessment criteria. These criteria are discussed and then tested employing sample of six viewshafts, as per the IHP’s Procedural Minute No.12. Height Sensitive Areas: since 1976, blanket height controls have been imposed to manage development on the slopes and margins of the cones, and to protect short range views and glimpses of them. This part of my evidence briefly explains the 2012 re-evaluation of, and update to, those areas where such limitations are imposed. Provisions: the objectives, policies and – more specifically – the rules framework that affords protection for both identified viewshafts and the flanks / margins of individual cones (via the HSAs) is discussed. CONTEXT & THE HISTORY OF VIEWSHAFT PROTECTION Context 13. Together with Auckland’s three harbours – the Waitemata, Manukau and Kaipara – its cone field is unquestionably the Region’s