Before a Board of Inquiry Northern Corridor Improvements Project Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the Act’) In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Act to consider notices of requirement for designations and resource consent applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the Northern Corridor Improvements Project Statement of evidence of Shannon Bray for the New Zealand Transport Agency (Urban design, landscape and visual) Dated 20 April 2017 KENSINGTON SWAN 18 Viaduct Harbour Avenue Ph +64 9 379 4196 Private Bag 92101 Fax +64 9 309 4276 Auckland 1142 DX CP22001 Solicitor: C M Sheard/N McIndoe [email protected]/[email protected] 1 Table of contents 1 Qualifications and experience 2 2 Involvement with the Project 3 3 Code of conduct 4 4 Scope of evidence 4 5 Executive summary 5 6 Methodology 7 7 Project description 7 8 Landscape context 8 9 Policy context 10 10 Design process (urban design and landscape) 10 11 Urban design assessment 14 12 Landscape effects assessment 22 13 Visual effects assessment 26 14 Response to submissions 47 15 Response to section 149G(3) key issues report 55 16 Conclusions 56 List of Annexures 58 Annexure A: Urban Design and Landscape Framework 59 Annexure B: Colliston Rise Map and Cross Sections 60 Annexure C:Plans, Cross Sections and 3D Digital Model of SH18 61 6270488 2 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF SHANNON BRAY FOR THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY 1 Qualifications and experience 1.1 My full name is Shannon Bray. 1.2 I am the director and owner of my own landscape architectural practice, Shannon Bray Ltd, in Hawke’s Bay, and have been in this position since June 2016. Previously, I was a Senior Principal and Landscape Architect at Boffa Miskell Ltd (‘BML’) a national firm of consulting planners, ecologists and landscape architects, from November 2012 to May 2016. 1.3 I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with Honours from the University of Lincoln (1996) and Bachelor of Forestry Science from Canterbury University (1994). I am a registered member and current President of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects. 1.4 I have practiced as a landscape architect, principally in the landscape planning arena, for over 13 years. I have undertaken assessments of a wide number of development proposals across New Zealand, including many infrastructure and utility related projects, and have provided consultancy services for a wide range of clients, including local authorities, land developers, and the infrastructure and electricity sectors. 1.5 My experience includes the assessment and mitigation design of a number of roading projects throughout the country, including several in the past few years for Auckland Transport (‘AT’) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (‘Transport Agency’). Key projects include: a Southern Corridor Improvements project, Auckland; b Waterview Connection (including the re-consenting elements of the Great North Road Interchange of the Waterview Tunnel proposal) and the Waterview Shared Use Path, Auckland; c Penlink, Auckland (involves a significant vehicle bridge across the Duck Creek Estuary in Silverdale); and d Transmission Gully, Wellington. 6270488 3 1.6 I have also been involved with the design, development and consenting of several Shared Use Paths (‘SUP’) across the Auckland and Hawke’s Bay regions. 1.7 I am a qualified Hearings Commissioner, having completed the Ministry for the Environment’s Making Good Decisions course. 1.8 My evidence relates to notices of requirement and resource consent applications lodged by the Transport Agency with the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) on 14 December 2016 for the Northern Corridor Improvements Project (‘Project’). 2 Involvement with the Project 2.1 I provided preliminary landscape and urban design advice to the Project Team when I was employed at BML from November 2015 to May 2016. I was engaged to prepare expert evidence for this Project in March 2017. John Goodwin, of BML, who oversaw the preparation of the Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects (‘LVE Report’) and intended to present evidence, will be overseas during the period of the hearing. 2.2 I am familiar with the area that the Project covers including the State highway and local roading network in the vicinity of the Project. I undertook several site visits in early 2016 and several more recent visits to the Project area in March and April 2017. 2.3 I have reviewed the LVE Report prepared by Thomas Lines from BML and reviewed by John Goodwin and I agree with and support the contents of that report except where stated in my evidence below. Following further investigation and analysis, I have been able to further refine the assessment of effects included in the LVE Report, although with a few exceptions as a result of more detailed analysis (as I will outline below). Overall, I largely support the conclusions of the LVE Report. 2.4 I was not involved in the preparation of the draft Urban Design and Landscape Framework (‘UDLF’) but I have undertaken an intensive review of that document since it was lodged with the EPA. A revised version of the UDLF is attached to my evidence as Annexure A, and I will be referring to the updated information throughout my evidence below. 6270488 4 The methodology used to assess landscape and visual effects is outlined in paragraph 6.1 and in Appendix A of the LVE Report. 3 Code of conduct 3.1 I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the current Environment Court Practice Note (2014), have complied with it in the preparation of this evidence, and will follow the Code when presenting evidence to the Board. I also confirm that the matters addressed in this statement of evidence are within my area of expertise, except where I rely on the opinion or evidence of other witnesses. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express. 4 Scope of evidence 4.1 This evidence addresses the following matters: a A summary of my evidence; b Methodology; c Project description; d Landscape context; e Policy context; f Design process (urban design and landscape); g Urban design assessment; h Landscape assessment; i Visual effects assessment; j Comments on submissions lodged in relation to the Project; k Response to section 149G(3) key issues report; and l Conclusions. 4.2 In preparing this evidence, I have reviewed the following evidence: 6270488 5 a Mr Glucina, Transport Agency; b Mr Moore, Project Design; c Mr Hale, Construction; d Mr Clark, Transportation – General Overview; e Mr Rama, Iwi Consultation; f Ms Strogen, Social Effects; g Ms Wilkening, Noise and Vibration; h Mr Don, Terrestrial Ecology; i Mr Ridley, Earthworks; j Mr Schofield, Alternatives; and k Mr Greenaway, Reserves and Recreation. 5 Executive summary 5.1 I have undertaken a detailed assessment of the proposed urban design outcomes, and the potential landscape and visual effects of the Project. In undertaking this assessment, I have visited the site on several occasions, worked with the Project Team to review the design and make changes to it, and have undertaken a detailed review of the UDLF. 5.2 I am of the opinion that, through the UDLF, the Urban Design Landscape Plans (‘UDLPs’) and the conditions of consent, the Project will provide good urban design outcomes. Principally this results from greater connectivity across this part of the city, its connections to the region, and the improved cross-connectivity over the existing road corridors. Detailed design principles and outcomes sought are provided for in the UDLF, and I consider that the conditions and design process will allow for sufficient ongoing review by both the Project Team and key stakeholders (such as Auckland Council). 5.3 From a landscape perspective, I also consider that the Project will deliver positive outcomes. I accept that it will result in a change to parts of the 6270488 6 landscape, particularly when existing vegetation is removed, but I am of the opinion that the extensive proposed planting more than mitigates for this loss, indeed it will provide an enhancement. The road corridor will have approved landscape amenity, lower whole of life costs, and contribute to wider landscape outcomes (such as wildlife corridors). These outcomes are driven through the UDLF, which is required to be implemented through various conditions proposed. 5.4 Generally, the potential visual effects across the Project will be low, rising to moderate in Character Area D (as assessed in the LVE Report). However, from the detailed assessment of the Project, I consider that there are some properties that will experience higher levels of visual effect, as follows: a The western-most residences at 60B Masons Road that overlook the proposed Albany Busway Overbridge. It is recommended that lower height lighting be used on this bridge. b Four properties in Colliston Rise (Lots 25, 26, 27 and 28) directly adjacent to retaining walls. Mitigation options are set out in the UDLF.1 c Four properties in Barbados Drive (numbers 39, 41B, 43 and 45) directly adjacent to the proposed Paul Matthews Road overbridge, and a further four properties (numbers 33, 35, 37 and 47) who will experience moderate effects. Mitigation options include a new 2.4m fence extending the length of the boundary from Caribbean Drive to Rook Reserve, and the retention and enhancement of boundary planting. 5.5 The mitigation of these potential visual effects is also driven by design principles and outcomes sought in the UDLF, and there is opportunity for the proposed mitigation to be reviewed by Auckland Council during the Outline Plan of Works (‘OPW’) process.