Response to Section 92 Request for Launch Bay: Landscape & Urban Design

Transcription

1 Brown NZ Ltd P O Box Parnell Auckland 1151 TO: Ila Daniels Principal Planner Campbell Brown Planning Limited Matthew Dayman Winton Partners FROM: Stephen Brown DATE: 1 March 2018 Re: Response to Section 92 Request for Launch Bay: Landscape & Urban Design Ila / Matthew, Further to the correspondence from Auckland Council on 18 January and our meeting Auckland Council s review team on 8 February, I have addressed the following matters: The visual catchments associated with development within the Launch Bay Precinct (in particular, the Launch Road East Tower) and potential viewpoints other than those employed in the AEE assessment of 23 October The height and profile of the East Building relative to potential development within the Permitted Baseline building envelopes within Catalina Bay. The effects of the proposed Catalina Barracks Apartments and Oval Apartments on the Te Ara Manawa boardwalk following the Hobsonville coastline from Catalina Bay towards SH18. The rating scale employed in the evaluation of visual / landscape effects. VISUAL CATCHMENTS Attachment A to this report provides an indication of the main receiving environments exposed to the Launch Road East Building the tallest, and most visually prominent, of the proposed Launch Bay buildings. Indeed, the 68m plus height of the proposed East Building seems designed to affirm the marker building status of its site, while its location on a relatively flat coastal terrace, backed by the plain of the Hobsonville / Whenuapai Peninsula and the Waitemata Harbour on three sides can only amplify both its profile in this regard. As such, it is hardly surprising that it will be visible from a wide range of catchments and vantage points.

2 Even so, it also needs to be recognised that the Zones of Theoretical Visibility identified in Attachment A are derived solely from terrain modelling, and not take into account localised (minor) landform variations, existing buildings or existing vegetation cover. As a result, views towards the East Building, and the rest of Launch Bay s buildings, would be more limited in places, fleeting or fragmentary than the mapping on Attachment A generally indicates. Notwithstanding these limitations, the location and physical elevation of the East Building will still result in it potentially being visible from a wide range of vantage points and catchments. In addition to the Hobsonville Point locale and adjoining SH18 highway corridor (which were addressed in the AEE report), these include: The west-facing coastal slopes and inland ridges around Beach Haven and Birkdale (addressed in the AEE); The coastal margins of Greenhithe (addressed in the AEE); The western margins of Herald Island, together with its causeway (Kingsway Reserve) and ferry wharf; Parts of Whenuapai around the air base, village and northern to eastern coastal margins; Parts of southern Hobsonville around Clark and Scott Roads; More elevated parts of West Harbour either side of Hobsonville Road and Luckens Road, rising towards the Trig Road / Luckens Road ridge; The northern margins of Te Atatu near Kelvin Strand, its boat ramp and walkway; The coastal edge of Coyle Park in Point Chevalier; and Intervening harbour area from Paremoremo to Point Chevalier. However, this overview of areas potentially exposed to the East Building fails to provide a complete picture of the proposed development s visual exposure and effects. For example, views towards Hobsonville from Point Chevalier and the Te Atatu Peninsula (Attachment B) are restricted to the coastal edge at the northern end of both suburbs; while views from West Harbour s north-facing slopes are limited to road corridors, local reserves (such as parts of Luckens Reserve) and sporadic high points that circumvent the buildings, garden vegetation and trees within both parks and stream courses which otherwise obstruct views of Hobsonville Point (Attachments C & D). Although the flat plane of the runway and airbase at Whenuapai (Attachment E) would reveal the East Building on the eastern skyline, it would compete with the fencing, lighting and other paraphernalia on the air base and the tree planting beyond it. Most of Herald Island s public domain is screened from views towards Hobsonville by the housing and gardens along the eastern coastal edge of the island limiting such views to the causeway and ferry wharf at each end of it (Attachments F & G) while most of Beach Haven and Birkdale remain screened from the nearby coastline and Hobsonville Point by intervening ridges and housing (Attachment I). Around the edge of Beach Haven, a few elevated streets overlook the inner Waitemata Harbour like an appropriately titled, Airview Road (Attachment J) and these also capture reasonably clear views of parts of the former air base. Yet, most catchments behind the main coastal ridge are still substantially screened from it. Even the ridgeline straddling Birkdale Road which is identified by the ZTV as being exposed to the East Building is effectively cut off from Hobsonville by intervening housing development, Birkenhead College and domestic vegetation (Attachment K). More distant views, from locations like the Birkenhead and Glenfield Cemetery (Attachment L), would reveal the East Building in the distance, but effectively swallowed up by the broad matrix of suburban development flanking it. ADDITIONAL VIEWPOINTS The 6 viewpoints employed in the AEE assessment captured worst case views of the change anticipated within and around Launch Bay as a result of redevelopment. This remains the case, taking into account the ZTV analysis and the site visits that led to identification of the viewpoints shown in Attachment A (and discussed above). However, as many of the more 2

3 remote viewing catchments represented by the viewpoints in Attachments A to L will reveal (where that is the case) the East Building either set against the backdrop of the forested Helyers Creek escarpment or the distant hills around Paremoremo, it would tend to both stand out as the sort of wayfinding landmark discussed p.48 of my AEE report and lighthouse, as discussed in relation to Viewpoint 4 (Greenhithe Bridge / SH18). As such, it would help to locate Hobsonville Point and Launch Bay within the wider canvas of west Auckland and its coastal margins. Importantly, however, in relation to all of the viewpoints and catchments addressed, the East Building would not be so visually prominent that it might be regarded as intrusive or dominant. Within views from the likes of Coyle Park and Kelvin Strand, it would emerge as part of a much wider matrix of development framing the inner reaches of the Waitemata Harbour, whereas when viewed from parts of West Harbour, Whenuapai and those parts of Beach Haven and Birkdale set back from the coast, it would become a distinctive landmark that locates an otherwise invisible Hobsonville Point. Around the margins of Herald Island and those parts of Beach Haven overlooking both Helyers Creek and the Waitemata Harbour reaching towards Paremoremo, the presence of the East Building would be more marked, but it would be viewed in conjunction with the wider panoply of development extending inland from Catalina Bay, Launch Bay, the Hudson Precinct and Harrier Point. It would, to a considerable extent, anchor that less elevated development, providing the sort of pivot point perhaps envisaged when the Launch Road East site was first identified as the location for a potential marker building. In fact, it would achieve that role, while the linear, upright form of the tower, juxtaposed with the surrounding harbour waters and margins would tend to accentuate its analogy with a lighthouse in a way that is perhaps less apparent in more close-up views. These findings largely affirm the analysis already undertaken and raise no new issues, other than being more explicit about the range of locations that would conceivably be exposed to the East Building tower. On the basis of these findings, it is considered that there is no need to identify additional viewpoints or to evaluate the proposal from such viewpoints. THE EAST BUILDING & CATALINA BAY BUILDING ENVELOPES Council s Section 92 report requested that additional information be provided about the relationship of the East Building with potential future development in Catalina Bay. This relationship including the permitted baseline for future development within Catalina Bay is discussed at pages 7 and 8 of my AEE report: In addition, Precinct Plan 7 for Catalina Bay (displayed overleaf, from the AUP) shows four development areas within the physical bounds of that precinct. Notably, it reveals the potential for development up to 8m-13.5m high within Development Areas 1 and 2. Such development could conceivably occupy most of the current car park in front of the former workshops as well as the majority of its harbour frontage. In addition, Development Area 3 at the eastern end of Catalina Bay provides for development up to 16.5m high while Development Area 4 located inside Developments Areas 2 and 3 is designed to accommodate development up to 27m high (approximately 9-10 storeys). These development envelopes are potentially very significant in relation to the future perception of buildings within Launch Bay from Catalina Bay s retail area and farmers market, together with a small area of future open space in front of the old sea plane hangar that is currently being refurbished. Such development is also likely to impact very appreciably on views towards Launch bay from the adjoining harbour channel and Beach Haven s coastal margins. 3

4 Unitary Plan Operative In Part: Zoning of Launch Bay In order to illustrate the likely relationship between that permitted baseline development and the development proposed for Launch Bay including the East Building the photo simulations prepared by Build Media include the following images for Viewpoints 1, 2 and 4-6 (overleaf): 4

5 Viewpoint 1: Viewpoint 2: Viewpoint 4: 5

6 Viewpoint 5: Viewpoint 6: Viewpoint 3 was not addressed in this manner, as development in the foreground of the view from within Catalina Bay rising to an 8m average or close to that level would completely obscure the East Building and other Launch Bay development exposed to this viewpoint. Notwithstanding this absence, it is my opinion that the simulations prepared for Viewpoints 1, 2 and 4-6 capture the visual interplay between the proposed Launch Bay buildings and likely future development within Catalina Bay and also across Harrier Point for a range of viewpoints that would be most affected by the current applications. In my view, this is much more meaningful and relevant than the simple elevations that were initially requested by Council, as it captures the real world interplay of buildings from a variety of actual viewing perspectives and angles. 6

7 EFFECTS ON THE TE ARA MANAWA WALKWAY The Te Ara Manawa Walkway and boardwalk, extending from the Catalina Bay ferry wharf westwards, would wrap around the base of the escarpment, native vegetation and twin gullies that frame the Launch Bay Precinct. Council s concern in relation to views from the walkway / boardwalk towards the Precinct appear to focus on the second of those gullies, running inland between the Launch Bay and Hudson Precincts. The more eastern gully would terminate in Catalina Bay s commercial development, utilising the former RNZAF workshops, while the gully running next to the Hudson Precinct is already destined to be overlooked by the consented, 5-6 storey apartment building discussed at p.9 of my AEE report (see below). 5-6 storey apartment building consented for the eastern edge of the Hudson Precinct near the Sunderland Lounge building That development, together with the proposed Catalina Barracks Apartments and Oval Apartments and perhaps also the Jimmys Apartment Building would be visible above the gully system, both from part of the boardwalk and adjoining harbour. On the other hand, most of the existing Officers Houses and more inland development currently proposed would be largely screened by the intervening gully slopes, the main coastal embankment enclosing it and the mixture of pohutukawas and native shrubs that line most of the coastal edge west of Catalina Bay. It is impossible to ascertain the degree of such interaction at present, because the Te Ara Manawa Walkway has yet to be opened to the public. Regardless, it is anticipated that various views and glimpses towards the proposed development, within both precincts, would become part of the matrix of both man-made, and natural, elements framing the journey along the walkway / boardwalk before culminating in the commercial precinct of Catalina Bay and its ferry wharf. Although this might be regarded as diminishing some of the naturalness of the walkway and the experience of using it, the reality is that nearly all of Hobsonville s margins reveal interaction between more natural and more cultural elements. This is equally apparent looking beyond the confines of Hobsonville Point and its coastal margins towards Herald Island, Greenhithe, Helyers Creek and Beach Haven, with sequences of native forest 7

8 and vegetation broken, then replaced by a layered sequence of residential development and gardens even SH18 and its bridge. Consequently, it is expected that views towards the proposed apartment buildings would be consistent with that existing experience. Furthermore, the combination of the coastal escarpment, gully system and coastal vegetation would remain a clearly legible, continuous sequence of natural elements and features that frames the harbour waters. This would be juxtaposed with the more elevated development above, and set back from, the coastal edge creating a sense of juxtaposition that is both consistent with the past location of the RNZAF barracks and officers houses, and with the current footprints of both the Launch Bay and Hudson Precincts. Overall, it is considered that the anticipated interplay of natural and man-made elements is appropriate. THE ASSESSMENT RATING SCALE Council has also requested that a rating scale for effects be provided, to help guide its review of the AEE assessment. In fact, a rating scale is found in my AEE report at p.27 as follows: None Low Moderate High Severe No part of the over-height development is discernible and / or only a very small part of the over-height development is discernible to the point where it would have a negligible impact on the character and values of the viewed landscape / environment. The over-height development constitutes a minor component of the visible landscape / environment that might be missed by the casual observer; or awareness of the proposal would not have a marked effect on the overall quality of that landscape / environment. The over-height development would be clearly recognisable as a new and recognisable element within the landscape / environment and would modify or change its character to a degree that would be appreciated by most observers. The over-height development forms a significant and immediately apparent part of the visible landscape / environment and results in significant degradation of the character of that landscape setting. The over-height development becomes the dominant feature of the scene to which other elements become subordinate; it has a very significant and deleterious impact on the character and values of its landscape setting. This scale is considered to be consistent with the NZILA Best Practice Guide for Landscape Assessment (10.1), which recommends a 5 or 7 point scale for the evaluation of effects, and the ratings attributed to each viewpoint in my AEE are considered to be consistent with the scale descriptions provided above. Regards, Stephen Stephen Brown BTP, Dip LA, Fellow NZILA Registered NZILA Landscape Architect 8