URBAN DESIGN ASSESSMENT: MIXED USE (RESIDENTIAL) DEVELOPMENT AT 64 GREAT SOUTH ROAD, AUCKLAND

URBAN DESIGN ASSESSMENT: MIXED USE (RESIDENTIAL) DEVELOPMENT AT 64 GREAT SOUTH ROAD, AUCKLAND FOR AUSTIN MANAGEMENT LTD BY IAN MUNRO MAY 2017 64 Great South Road (2017), page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report outlines an independent urban design assessment of a proposal for a mixeduse, 34-apartment development (predominantly residential) at 64 Great South Road, Remuera, Auckland. The application has been made under the Resource Management Act 1991 in terms of the (decisions version) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The key conclusions of this report are that: The site, given its proximity to Newmarket centre, is suitable for the scale and intensity of medium-rise (6-storey) mixed use (residential dominant) development proposed, although the recessed / set back characteristics of the top storey are important in this respect. The layout of the development is efficient and responds appropriately to the site s opportunities (including proximity to Newmarket centre) and, in particular, its constraints (including adjacency to a campus-style school and a rail line). The layout of the development and moderate intensity proposed is in line with the locational strategy and centre-supporting role envisaged in the Auckland Unitary Plan for the Mixed Use zone. The development will support Newmarket centre and the passenger transport system, and will positively contribute to the quality of the street. The development provides a successful activation of the street given the need for a road widening strip to be provided. The development will enable a variety of unit sizes and compact housing products to be achieved on the site which will support greater housing choice including affordability. The apartments will provide adequate internal amenity for residents and site users. The development will maintain the amenities of adjacent sites including those not zoned Mixed Use, and be of an adequate visual quality given its likely short-term prominence. On the basis of the above and subject to the recommendations set out in this report, consent could be granted on urban design grounds. CONTACT IAN MUNRO urban planning and design solutions B.Plan (Hons); M.Plan (Hons); M.Arch (Hons); M.EnvLS (Hons); M.EngSt (Hons); MNZPI Independent Hearings Commissioner (e) ian.c.munro@gmail.com (m) 021 900 993 64 Great South Road (2017), page 2

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 4 2. Scope and involvement 4 3. Urban design framework 4 4. Site analysis 6 5. Design response 11 6. Assessment 12 7. Conclusions 25 64 Great South Road (2017), page 3

1. INTRODUCTION This report outlines an independent urban design assessment of a proposal for a mixeduse, 34-apartment development (predominantly residential) at 64 Great South Road, Remuera, Auckland. The application has been made under the Resource Management Act 1991 in terms of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). This assessment has been prepared for Austin Management Ltd. A separate planning assessment should be relied on to establish the overall merits of the application including satisfaction of the relevant AUP matters. 2. SCOPE AND INVOLVEMENT Ian Munro has been engaged to provide an independent urban design assessment of the application. Ian Munro has been consulted during the design process and offered suggestions as the design evolved. However, the design decisions made by the applicant s design team have been its own. The process followed to undertake this urban design assessment is as follows: 1. A site visit in order to understand the location, characteristics and context of the site was undertaken. 2. A previous urban design report led to a modified proposal being submitted to the Council after a s.92 and notification determination. 3. A briefing from Mr. David Parkinson, Planner, outlined the key planning considerations relevant to the site s development. 4. Final development plans were received and assessed. These incorporated a number of changes that Ian Munro had previously identified. 5. This report has been prepared. The drawings relied on for the assessment were prepared by GEL Architects Ltd., and labelled project 16038, Resource Consent, sheets 10-01 10-03; 20-01 20-10; 30-01 30-08; 40-01 40-04; and 50-01 to 50-03. Photo simulations prepared by LA4 Ltd have also been considered, labelled Photo Viewpoint 1 3. 3. URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 64 Great South Road (2017), page 4

Ian Munro has prepared an urban design framework to assess the proposal against. It is based upon: The AUP, specifically chapter H13 of the Operative in Part version (Mixed Use zone, but also a series of more generalised business zone-wide objectives and policies). Ian Munro has been advised that, as it relates to the subject site, the relevant provisions can be deemed to be Operative. A key consequence of the AUP policy framework is that a consideration of the proposal against the AUP outcomes (or future environment ) has become at least as important as the more conventional assessment of the proposal against the existing environment. The New Zealand Urban Design Protocol; and The Auckland Design Manual (ADM). In summary, the key urban design issues relevant to the proposed development are (in no order of significance): The layout and density should logically respond to the site s opportunities and constraints. The development should support and reinforce Newmarket Metropolitan Centre in a way that remains of moderate intensity and is of mixed activity. The development should activate and improve the quality of the public street edge. The development should maintain reasonable daylight and privacy to neighbouring sites, and minimise visual dominance effects. Significant effects on residents (on and off-site) are to be avoided. A variety of housing types should be provided. Buildings should be designed to be easily distinguishable from one another, be visually interesting, and to otherwise mitigate any potential effects arising from substantial building lengths or flat surface planes. These issues also correspond to and address the matters raised within the AUP decisions version Mixed Use zone. For this reason, this assessment will not include a separate or explicit analysis of each individual planning Policy (although reference will be made where appropriate). The essential qualities outlined in the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol of character, context, connections, choice, creativity, collaboration and custodianship have been considered in the assessment of all of the above. It is noted that the qualities of creativity, collaboration and custodianship are of limited analytical value when considering a subdivision application and its effects. 64 Great South Road (2017), page 5

4. SITE ANALYSIS SITE ANALYSIS The following analysis addresses the site s key characteristics, opportunities and constraints. The following are the site s key characteristics: The site The site is 1,002m2 in area and has been used as a residential cross lease (2 units in 1 building). The site has a conventional generally rectangular shape. The site is generally flat, with a 1.75m fall from its front to back along a site depth of 49m, or a gradient of 1(v):28(h). The site is almost fully paved or covered in buildings. Very minimal landscaping exists. The site s existing buildings are 1-storey pitched roof and residential in character. They are screened from the street by a solid timber fence and screening vegetation behind that. The building is set back approximately 9m from the front boundary and the front yard space is used as a vehicle parking and manoeuvring area (to prevent reverse manoeuvres out onto Great South Road). The current buildings have a minimal street presence offer little amenity, and virtually no opportunities for passive surveillance, to the street. The site has a 20m wide frontage to Great South Road, facing south-west. The site is accessed by way of a single-width vehicle crossing at its southern corner. There is no separate pedestrian access to the site. The Mixed Use zone determined through the AUP for the site enables a substantial change from its current use. The AUP policy framework is markedly different from the previous plans, and of particular reference the emphasis within the new approach focuses on the planned future form and quality of the zone (objective H13.2.3), rather than the existing environment today. This a significant analytical implication when it comes to assessing the impact of any visual or other change that a proposal may result in. A resource consent for a 5-storey mixed-use development (effectively the subject proposal without its top level) is currently being processed by the Council. Neighbouring sites 64 Great South Road (2017), page 6

The site is part of a regularly-structured block, with one side facing Great South Road and the other facing Mauranui Avenue. In turn, Mauranui Avenue fronts the railway line, which abuts State Highway 1. That combined open space is in places over 90m wide. The neighbouring sites accommodate a variety of uses, although range predominantly from 1 to 3-storeys in height at this time. To the immediate north-west at 62 Great South Road is a 1 to 2-storey Dilworth Motel. This is a small-scale operation configured so that buildings run along and close to the common boundary with the subject site, facing north-west and opening onto a parking and manoeuvring area for guests. This activity accommodates relatively minimal perimeter / screening vegetation. Further north are 58 and 50 Great South Road. These sites are used as motor vehicle dealerships (Giltrap Skoda at the smaller 58 Great South Road site, and the quite substantial Schofield Holden at 50 Great South Road). These activities include reasonably high-stud 1 storey showroom type buildings, and prominently present forecourt areas to the street. To the site s immediate south-east, at 66 Great South Road is the Green Park Motel. This activity s site continues through to Mauranui Avenue and vehicles are able to cross the block directly using a continuous driveway connecting each road. This activity has 2 x 2-storey concrete block buildings (one building sits on each of the original site title areas), with car parking distributed around and between the buildings. On this site, grassed areas and landscaping has been retained between the buildings and the north-western / common boundary with the subject site. A solid timber fence screens much of the site s frontage from the street. Further south-east is 70 Great South Road. This site has been formed from two historic side-by-side lots. It accommodates the Siesta Motel. This activity consists of one storey buildings, one on each of the historic title areas bisected by an access and parking area. This site contains more generous vegetation than many of its neighbours, including numerous mature specimens. This site presents a low stone wall and a higher fence or landscaping to the street so as to maintain internal privacy. Immediately behind the subject site is 23 Mauranui Avenue. This site accommodates an established residential dwelling currently used as a commercial child-care facility. It faces north-east across Mauranui Avenue to the railway and State Highway (including retaining structures and walls associated with these). The rear of this site is used as an outdoor play area for children, and includes a cluster of mature trees in its southern corner. North-west of 23 Mauranui Avenue is 21 Mauranui Avenue. This site has been developed as a row of 6 attached townhouses. They are 3-storeys tall and have vehicle access and garaging facing south-east. The north-western part of the site is landscaped and accommodates outdoor living spaces (balconies) for the units. 64 Great South Road (2017), page 7

This site also has perimeter screening vegetation around its boundaries and mature trees at the Mauranui Avenue frontage. South-east of 23 Mauranui Avenue is the rear-half of 66 Great South Road and the Green Park Motel. On the opposite side of Great South Road from the subject site is 25-29 Great South Road. Although developed in 3 separate titles, these sites have been developed as a small-scale office park of similarly designed buildings set back from the street. They are 3-storeys (the 3 rd storey is recessed) and unmistakeably commercial in nature, featuring expanses of continuous darkened or reflective glazing, large parking areas, and signage. The design has also allowed for retention of landscaped areas including some mature tree specimens. North-west of 25 Great South Road is Ngaire Avenue, and across that road is 21 Great South Road. That building fronts the street and corner, including a verandah overhanging the footpath. It is a 2-storey commercial showroom-scaled building. South-east of 29 Great South Road is 31-33 Great South Road. This site accommodates a 3-storey commercial building orientated to face Erin Street that is set back from both frontages. The building presents a relatively prominent blank wall to Great South Road. Both Erin and Ngaire Streets have been laid out to accommodate relatively large quantities of on-street parking by way of 90 o angle spaces. All adjoining and adjacent sites have been zoned Mixed Use in the AUP (decisions version), with the exception of the Dilworth School it has a Special Purpose zone. Great South Road Great South Road is a historically important road in Auckland, acting as a key route for armed forces invading the Waikato in the Land Wars, and then more recently acting as the de-facto State Highway until the period of highway building from the 1950s onwards replaced it. The road remains a busy and very mixed corridor. In the vicinity of the site, the road is 20.1m wide, reflecting the imperial chain dimension it was surveyed with. Currently the road accommodates 3m wide footpaths on each side, running continuously from the property boundary to the kerb line, and then a vehicular carriageway configured asymmetrically. In the north-west direction are a bus lane and general travel lane, then a flush median, followed by the opposing-direction travel lane and a sporadic marked on-street parking lane. There are no regular or prominent street trees or vegetation, although mature trees within private front yards compensate a degree of amenity. The road is flat and straight. 64 Great South Road (2017), page 8

A quirk of surveying means that on the south-western side of the street, northfacing local roads frequently intersect at an acute angle. The busyness of the street has led to frequent traffic control signals at intersections. This has a pedestrian benefit of providing a safe crossing opportunity almost every 300m 400m. The importance and intensity of this corridor would justify a more urban built form response than would be the case on a lower-order local street. Wider neighbourhood The locality is very mixed, in terms of the land use activities that exist and the scale of buildings provided. At this time building height is consistently 3 storeys or less, although the direction signalled in the AUP may change this. The site is a 300m flat and straight walk from the intersection of Great South Road, Alpers Avenue, St Marks Road, Manukau Road, and Broadway. In this respect the site is within a convenient walking distance of Newmarket centre and its amenities. The site is also an approximately 850m walk from the Remuera Train Station, or a 960m walk to the Newmarket Train Station. Immediately south-east of Erin Street is Dilworth School, laid out on a wellmaintained campus. Its playing fields face Great South Road and a line of mature trees gives a distinctive variation to the streetscape. It sits on an almost 14.5ha grounds. This is within a convenient walk of the site. Bus stops are provided on Great South Road approximately 100m north-west of the site. This route carries a relatively high volume of services including frequent services into the CBD. The predominant natural feature in the locality is Mt Hobson. This is a 600m walk from the site, using the Mauranui Avenue footbridge to cross the railway line and State Highway 1. The local street network is a grid offering a reasonably high number of route options. This has been severed by the railway and State Highway 1 to the northeast of the site. The AUP policy vision for the segment of Great South Road between Broadway and Market Road can be summarised as follows: The arterial road corridor will continue to increase its traffic load, and will be widened over time to accommodate more intensity; Buildings between 4 to 5 storeys tall (or taller with land use consent), often abutting each other at side boundaries and mostly, but not always, fronting a street with car parking behind; 64 Great South Road (2017), page 9

A mixture of commercial and residential activities; More varied and possibly slightly reduced building heights adjacent to the Dilworth school and its Special Purpose zone; On the basis of the above, a positive urban character very different to the low-intensity, detached, and generally medium-to-low quality streetscape that currently exists. SITE OPPORTUNITIES The following are the site s key urban design opportunities: The site is readily developable and has non-residential activities on all three direct sides. Only one adjoining site (across the north-corner) at 21 Mauranui Ave accommodates a residential activity, and the development on that site does not face or have principal living spaces facing the subject site. This makes the subject site relatively free of immediate sensitivities. The site immediately south-east, 66 Great South Road, is a motel activity based on short-stay accommodation and guests that will frequently be out and about during the day time. This makes it less susceptible to shadowing effects cast from buildings on the subject site than a residential activity would be. The mixed-use nature of the environment including a wide variety in building sizes, architectural styles, and configurations offers a high degree of design freedom. There is no predominant architectural style, site configuration, or building material. Many sites in the locality exhibit non-preferred urban design outcomes. The site s proximity to Newmarket centre, passenger transport services, Mt Hobson Domain and DiIworth school would justify high density residential housing. Great South Road is not a pleasant street environment, evidenced by the number of activities that have screened themselves from the street. A commercial activity that benefits from the intensity and busyness of the street would be an ideal response, and the AUP Mixed-Use zone provides for this. The site sits on a segment of Great South Road between Broadway and Mauranui Avenue that is, on the whole, characterised by medium to large buildings and commercial-dominant activity and in this respect the site is notably underdeveloped. The segment south of Mauranui Avenue through to Market Road is, by contrast, characterised by smaller-scaled residential activity and the open space of the Dilworth campus. The site sits in something of a triangular island between the significant open space corridor of State Highway 1, the railway line, and Mauranui Avenue on the north-eastern side, the substantial extent of Dilworth School on the south side, and Manukau Road on the west. Within this, relatively dense and substantial 64 Great South Road (2017), page 10

development could be accommodated in a way that had minimal external effects of concern. SITE CONSTRAINTS The following are the site s key urban design constraints: Great South Road is a busy road and on-site vehicle turning will be required. It would be difficult to attract high amenity residential uses at the ground level. The site s frontage has a slightly southerly aspect, although afternoon sun will shine across the frontage. This is a (relatively modest) design challenge in terms of how to orientate buildings and activities so that they still front and overlook the street. The State Highway and rail corridors, while providing a protected long-term outlook space, will also generate noise nuisance. The subdivision pattern lends itself to a continuation of fragmented urbanism. How to maintain a suitable separation from the side neighbours while achieving maximum building width along the frontage will be a key design challenge. Shadowing effects on land to the south (notably 66 Great South Road) may become problematic with additional building height. 5. DESIGN RESPONSE The proposal is to redevelop the site into a 6-storey building featuring car parking and commercial activity facing Great South Road at the ground level and the remainder of the building being 34 residential apartments (12 x 1-bedroom and 22 x 2-bedroom). A basement car parking level is also proposed. The building has been designed in an L shape, fronting Great South Road and with the rear side (access side) running close and parallel to the south-eastern boundary with 66 Great South Road. On the north-western side is a setback allowing outlook space and outdoor living space. The level 1 (2 nd storey) apartments have a de-facto raised ground level condition with courtyards, which is the roof of the ground level parking area (effectively a 1-storey podium). This is proposed to be landscaped with barriers so as to prevent overlooking down onto the neighbouring site at 62 Great South Road by both creating a vertical landscape screen and keeping people away from the edge. Although a two-way vehicle crossing is proposed, the upper levels facing Great South Road are proposed to enclose above that space so the building can better relate to the 64 Great South Road (2017), page 11

street. The vehicle access is proposed to have a gate set back sufficiently to allow a car to wait without blocking the existing footpath. The south-eastern elevation has been treated as a back. An approximately 11.5m wide solid wall is proposed from the Great South Road frontage being the end wall of the apartments that face the street. This is proposed to extend to the common boundary as is provided for in the zone, and incorporate a vertical window feature associated with the service stairwell, and building naming signage. The remainder of this elevation is given over to a semi-enclosed breezeway featuring screening elements and landscaping sitting atop the enclosed podium of the ground floor car park. The north-eastern boundary with 23 Mauranui Avenue is the site s rear boundary. It is proposed to contain largely blank walls abutting most of the boundary s width. It presents minimal glazing to this boundary and has been otherwise designed to maintain privacy for the adjoining sites at 23 and 21 Mauranui Avenue. The north-western boundary acts as the outlook and outdoor living space for the main length of apartments. These present a serrated front face approximately 5.7m back from the boundary with 62 Great South Road. Balconies form the serrations that are designed to provide sunlight access and privacy between units. As with the southeastern elevation, the portion of the building that fronts Great South Road presents a blank side wall abutting the common boundary here. This side is intended to accommodate a building name visible along Great South Road. The south-western boundary is the Great South Road frontage. This elevation has been composed to differentiate the ground level; the apartment access core serving the apartments, and the apartments that front Great South Road on levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 (storeys 2-5). Flush-face sliding screens for privacy are proposed for apartments on levels 1, 2 and 3 (storeys 2-4). The top level has been recessed back from this main frontage by approximately 3m and it has a different roof profile to further differentiate it as a complementary but visually separate building mass. The top / 6th storey has been proposed towards the frontage of the site; for the majority of the site s side the building will be 5-storeys. Overall the proposal seeks to contravene the maximum absolute height limit by approximately 2.15m near the street frontage. It otherwise involves no other contraventions of particular urban design significance. In terms of the height contravention, it is noted that the Mixed Use zone has a two-step height limit, whereby the top 2 metres is required to not be occupy-able (to promote varied roof forms). There is no rationale within the objectives or policies to explain this requirement, but it is understood that it relates primarily to achieving the AUP s expectation for management of the zone edge where it is adjacent to a residential or special purpose zone by encouraging a softer and more varied roof profile, as well as contributing to street scape amenity values. 6. ASSESSMENT 64 Great South Road (2017), page 12

THE LAYOUT AND DENSITY SHOULD LOGICALLY RESPOND TO THE SITE S OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The site layout reflects the obvious response to the site and its context. In summary: The proposal will result in a significant and prominent visual change, evidenced in all of the three photomontages prepared by LA4 Ltd. However, given that the bulk, scale and mass proposed is generally consistent with the AUP s vision for the zone and that over time additional similarly scaled buildings will reduce the conspicuity of this proposal, I do not consider that the occurrence of significant change itself results in a significant adverse urban design effect. The proposal is for a 5-storey mass aligned to the street frontage for its full width (excluding a void at the ground level for vehicle access). This will contribute to street frontage continuity, addressing and defining the street to add visual interest, and passive safety. A 5-storey outcome is consistent with the AUP 16m / 18m height limit for the zone, which has bulk and location controls generally designed to encourage buildings towards the street frontage. The recessed and mono-pitch roofed 6 th storey will add visual interest and a more interesting termination to the building s top than the 5 th storey flat roof, and in so doing relate to the purpose of the AUP s 2m non-habitable roof height allowance. The proposed 6 th storey has been designed to be recessed back from the street in a way whereby it would not be visible from the footpath on this side of the road (but visible from further away including across the road). It is proposed in the front part of the site so from the long side views from further along Great South Road (until such time as the subject site s immediate neighbours are re-developed) a person would see a short length of 5-storey building at the street, stepping up to a 6-storey section, stepping back down to a 5-storey building for the remainder and majority of the building s overall length (Photo Viewpoint 2 illustrates this). The plans and photomontages illustrate that the 6 th storey has been successfully designed as a subtle form that adds only marginally to the overall visual scale and appearance of the main body of the building (Photo Viewpoint 1 illustrates this). It is most convincingly shown on Gel sheet 40-04, where the AUP height limit modelled on sites around the subject site show that in time the recessed top level will have a negligible presence. As also illustrated in Photo Viewpoint 1, the overall height of the building as it relates to Great South Road will be similar to the height of an existing mature pohutukawa tree on the opposite side of the road and this helps maintain a balanced scale to the street cross section that will soften the impact of this new building in the intervening period until similar-scaled buildings are developed in time. As illustrated in Photo Viewpoint 3, the building s height will appropriately maintain views to the Mount Eden cone from Dilworth footbridge and will be generally confined to the horizon line above which the principal bulk of the cone rises. The scale of the building will also appear smaller than the closer and longer 2-3 storey 64 Great South Road (2017), page 13

pitched roof building at 78-80 Great South Road (the Newmarket International Motor Inn). The internal building component is linear, following the side boundary, and aligned so that the rear faces south-east wards with unit living spaces and principal glazing areas facing north-westwards. Its placement closer to the southern-eastern boundary is an attempt to internalise outlook space from the apartments within the site, so as to reduce potential overlooking or privacy effects on neighbours. This is a conventional response although is a design challenge for all east-west orientated sites with limited side-to-side depth: the least off-site shadows are likely to result if a building is massed on a site s northern side, but in so doing on-site unit outlook has to face south or intrude over the northern neighbour. In this instance, the commercial motel use of the south-eastern site at 66 Great South Road makes it less susceptible to shadowing effects and for this reason I agree that the proposed prioritisation leading to the southern building placement is the correct one. It allows required outlook space to be fully accommodated within the subject site (this is in my opinion the more problematic effect in high density environments as it is a permanent, 24/7 effect, than shadows which only apply for parts of clear-sky days). Nonetheless, consideration of shadowing effects on 66 Great South Road is a key potential effect arising from and relevant to the proposal. The configuration of building mass proposed will also allow some afternoon sun to access the main outdoor recreation area of the site at 23 Mauranui Avenue, through the shaft created by the on-site outlook area. The vehicle access has been located at the northern corner of the site frontage, as the southern corner accommodates the main circulation core. This helps to separate these functions and simplify the site s layout. Car parking has been internalised within the ground floor and a basement floor to remove it from the public eye, and otherwise allow on-site turning. This will ensure that the site is not dominated by car parking or storage activities, as has occurred on adjacent car dealership lots. A road widening strip has been provided for and the building s layout and placement has been designed to respond to that widened condition (except for the queue space in front of the parking area gate). A medium-rise residential-dominant development in this location will support Newmarket centre and not enable any realistic dispersal of existing commercial activities within the centre. Residents are likely to regularly visit Newmarket by foot or bicycle including for employment, entertainment, and daily need goods and services. Local amenities, services and schools, and bus routes on Great South Road also all support the residential density proposed. It is relevant that a non-residential building could have been proposed with a substantially greater gross floor area than the predominantly residential building 64 Great South Road (2017), page 14

proposed, including being located closer to the side and rear boundaries facing 62 and 66 Great South Road (although only slightly in respect of the latter), and 21 and 23 Mauranui Avenue. Of note, the Mixed Use zone provides for: A wide range of commercial activities as Permitted activities, including offices no greater than 500m2 per tenancy (but an unlimited quantity of such offices such as in a multi-tenant leasehold-based building investment); No yard or height in relation to boundary requirements relative to any of the adjoining properties; No building length or setback for upper level requirements for all buildings less than 27m in height; No building coverage or other built form limiter relative to the adjoining properties; No outlook or other requirements for visual privacy relative to the adjoining or adjacent properties; Restrictions of discretion at H13.8.1.3, assessment matters at H.13.8.2 and policies referred to thereby, that do not include any considerations relevant to effects on adjoining properties within the same zone (where relevant zone controls have been complied with). This has the effect of making buildings that comply with the zone controls effectively Permitted activities in terms of effects arising from the bulk and location of buildings on adjoining neighbours within the same zone; and On the basis of the above, and taking into account the 6 th storey proposed, the side and rear neighbours are likely to be subjected to appreciably less overall effects from the smaller and more set back residential-dominant activity proposed than a much larger scaled and bulkier (especially relative to boundaries) all-commercial outcome would. I consider that such an alternative is non-fanciful. In this respect, the proposal is compatible with its neighbours even including the over-height component. The above leads me to the conclusion that the proposed activities and built form for the site can be seen to take an overs (building height) and unders (site coverage and side / rear yard proximity and massing for the upper levels) response to the AUP development controls and policy drivers. The considerable reduction of building length and proximity around the side and rear boundaries otherwise likely is an important factor in assessing the appropriateness of the building height proposed. On an overall balance, I consider that the proposal reflects a sensitive way of maximising site efficiency while generally minimising effects on immediate neighbours. For 62 Great South Road, and 21 and 23 Mauranui Avenue, the proposal will have demonstrably less overall adverse effects than the zone standards enable and effectively permit. On 66 Great South Road, I consider that the overall effects between the proposal and a compliant alternative will be immaterially different. 64 Great South Road (2017), page 15

On the basis of the above considerations, I consider the proposal to be appropriately designed in response to its context. THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD ACTIVATE AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC STREET EDGE The proposal is reasonably successful in this respect. In particular: The existing site development relates poorly to the street in terms of both visual quality, amenity or (passive) safety. The proposed ground floor includes a commercial space facing and accessible to the street. An entrance for apartment residents is also visually prominent but recessed slightly behind the main commercial unit face to help emphasise its private rather than public purpose. Storeys 2-5 include principal living rooms and balconies facing the street, providing a sense of enclosure and overlooking down across users of the street that will contribute significantly to pedestrian amenity and safety. The vehicle access way has been designed with the intention of allowing cars to queue for the gate to open without blocking the footpath. It is additionally recommended that the vehicle crossing including its splays to the street be designed to the minimum required engineering standards so as to promote the slowest possible turning movement speeds. The 6 th storey has been recessed back and presents a balcony to the street as a means of further softening its front edge. It will contribute to morning shadows across the street but these will not be materially more adverse or problematic than the AUP development controls provide for on account of being set back from the boundary. The attempt to give this element a separate aesthetic including varied roof profile complements the more horizontally defined 5-storey element (including where from the street viewers will also be able to see the longer side elements) has been successful. In this respect the top level will contribute positively to streetscape amenity. The building s front elevation has been designed to provoke visual engagement including by way of sliding glass screens, a prominent framing feature and a separately articulated vertical access core expressed as a predominantly solid anchoring form. This in conjunction with the depth of the balconies and variation within the building s front face itself will avoid the adverse visual effects of blank, repetitively designed facades on the streetscape. Until such time as the side neighbours at 62 and 66 Great South Road are redeveloped in line with the AUP controls, people on Great South Road north and south of the site will also be exposed to views of the building s sides, as shown on Photo Viewpoints 1 and 2. In this respect: 64 Great South Road (2017), page 16

From the north-west (Viewpoint 1), viewers will see the solid side face of the front building including the building s naming signage. Behind this they will see the longer apartment form s front, including balconies and the rhythm of vertically demarcated units, and the subtle 6 th storey rising above these. As the building is extending laterally away from the road, it will also appear to reduce in height and size as distance from the front boundary increases. I consider that when 62 Great South Road is redeveloped, most if not all views through to the subject site would be removed. Until then, and despite being visually prominent I do not consider that any inappropriate adverse effects will arise based on the quality of the design proposed (the building s visual appearance and detail design are further addressed later in this report). From the south-east (Viewpoint 2), viewers will see the solid side face of the front building. Behind this they will see the more horizontally expressed semi-enclosed breezeway giving access to the longer apartment building. As that building is extending laterally away from the road, it will appear to reduce in height and size as distance from the front boundary increases. I consider that when 66 Great South Road is redeveloped, most if not all views through to the subject site would be removed. Breezeways are not associated with high quality development and are more appropriate when internalised within buildings or out of public view. In this instance the breezeway is enclosed within the building s roof form, includes glazed balustrades and vertical slat features integrated with a vine feature. This will mitigate the visual effects of what is a functional back appropriately given their indirect visibility from the street and the impermanent nature of the effect. From both directions, and including the orientation of local roads that intersect with Great South Road (Ngaire and Erin Streets), the linear nature of the road ensures that the subject site will not occupy any prominent view axis. I do not consider that the juxtaposition of the proposed 6-storey medium-rise building relative to the 1-3 storey low-rise buildings that exist in the locality is of itself an adverse visual effect. While being substantially different can be adverse in zones or contexts where there is a distinctive and valued built character cohesion or even uniformity (such as the suburb of Devonport), I do not consider it is adverse in a mixed use environment where the planning framework itself is enabling and even promoting considerable change (and has an objective explicitly calling for development to positively contribute to planned future character and quality). Related to this, I do not consider that being able to see a building within an urban environment is of itself an inherently adverse effect - the AUP itself describes the value in promoting the positive contribution development can make to urban form. I note in this respect that the proposal will not problematically impede or block any public view of significance. This proposal is the first in what will likely be many developments orientated towards a different planning goal than previous development served, and that will over time create a substantially different urban character for the street than exists at this time. I consider that the transitional gap toothed smile between now and that future point must have 64 Great South Road (2017), page 17

been inherently considered by the AUP decision makers and determined to not be problematic (for example a more managed transition could be by way of a lower height limit and additional matters of discretion for considering over-height buildings based on the existing building heights on adjacent sites such as is used in some instances across New Zealand to mediate differentials in front yard setbacks between neighbours). This appetite for change may also be why the Mixed Use zone policy framework gives greater emphasis to how development reflects the zone s planned policy outcomes and positively contributes to improved public space outcomes than protecting or maintaining the existing state of these environments. On the basis of the above, I consider that the proposal will have both positive and adverse effects on the character of the street, its visual quality, and pedestrian amenity. Positive effects will of note include the contribution to the type of more urban, enclosed, overlooked and activated street edge sought in the AUP, compared to the largely inactive and in some instances vehicle-dominated outcomes that are quite visually dominant in the locality at this time. Adverse effects include a greater intensity of vehicles crossing the footpath on a wider vehicle crossing than at present; shadowing of the street in the morning period; and the visual impact of the building s additional height and semi-enclosed breezeway from the south (until such time as 66 Great South Road is redeveloped). Any adverse effects associated with the proposal s impacts on the street will be less than minor, largely in line with the scale and type of change enabled in the AUP, and mitigated by way of the design decisions proposed or by recommendations set out above. THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD SUPPORT AND REINFORCE NEWMARKET METROPOLITAN CENTRE IN A WAY THAT REMAINS OF MODERATE INTENSITY AND IS OF MIXED ACTIVITY This issue is most relevant to the proposal in light of the additional building height proposed, and it relates to the matter of the outcomes intended by the AUP for the Mixed Use zone. The AUP has set in place a policy framework markedly different than the previous plan. The site s previous zoning was Residential 7a. In addition to a change of land use zone, the objectives and policies guiding zones, including the main centres, Mixed Use, and Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, have in particular fundamentally changed direction. This is most evident in the general zone approach to building height and has significant implications for urban design analysis. In the previous plans, building height was described almost always negatively, with plan policies and methods geared towards protecting the environment from height by avoiding or minimising it and its perceived adverse effects. For example, previous Objective 7.6.7.1 in the Auckland Council District Plan: Isthmus Section stated: To maximise design flexibility and allow residential activities to establish at a relatively high intensity, while protecting the surrounding environment from adverse effects of development. 64 Great South Road (2017), page 18

The language of protect followed through, in particular, to an emphasis on building height within the associated Plan provisions, and a resulting expectation that new development fit in closely with what existed already within neighbourhoods. This followed through into urban design assessment practice, with building height and scale often described solely in terms of adverse effects that needed to be restricted. In the AUP, the policy wording not only no longer describes height negatively it in some instances actively encourages it. In my view this requires a very different approach to urban design analysis that is, overall, more balanced and in favour of a building s overall design merit including the positive effects that large buildings can have in the urban environment (including helping bring about the compact city that has been only halfheartedly enabled to date). The Mixed Use zone describes the need to manage effects on the amenity values of adjacent residential zoned land but otherwise does not describe a basis for limiting height other than in respect of immediate nuisance effects (such as wind effects), and the reinforcement of centres as community focal points. The business and Mixed Use zone provisions describe large buildings frequently, and emphasise the need to manage these buildings by way of positive design quality rather than by avoiding or limiting large buildings (such as at AUP policy H13.3.5). The AUP makes new buildings a restricted discretionary activity. A height limit of 18m applies (16m occupy-able). Proposals that contravene this remain a restricted discretionary activity but subject to additional assessment considerations. This contrasts with the legacy approach where a stricter activity status applied above a stated height limit on the basis that the height limit was an indicator of a problematic adverse effect being likely. The AUP approach, by contrast, is silent on the inherent merit or effects of building height and it instead requires an assessment against relevant matters and policies. In this instance the additional height proposed triggers additional restricted discretionary assessment (H13.8.1.7), over and above that required of any new building anyways, of numerous matters including additional policies (via H13.8.2.7a) H13.3.8, H13.3.13, H13.3.14 and H13.3.21. Those policies address matters of: Impacts on areas of adjacent Residential or Special Purpose zone (H13.3.8); Considering whether the additional height is efficient; supports public transport, community infrastructure and centre vitality; avoids significant effects on adjacent residential zones; and is adjacent to a suitably scaled centre in the planning hierarchy (H13.3.13); Considering whether height below the standard limit should be required on the basis of significant adverse effects on an area of identified special character, identified landscape features or amenity (H13.3.14); Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the amenity values of adjacent residential zones (H13.3.21). It is noted, relevant to Policies H13.3.13 and H13.3.14, that the Mixed Use zone does include as a plan method the distribution of special height limits, some below, and most others above, the standard zone height - of up to 27m or more. While the Plan policy framework recognises that areas suitable for additional intensification have been recognised with these higher limits, there is no clear rationale or criteria explaining how this has been distributed on a case-by-case basis. There is no available information to 64 Great South Road (2017), page 19

explain whether or not the Council considered an additional height allowance for the subject site or if it did, what its reasons may have been for retaining the standard zone height limit as the basis for resource consent assessments. On the basis of the above AUP analysis, I disagree that the AUP can be interpreted in a manner whereby a bulk or location contravention can start by being seen as less inherently suitable than a complying alternative, especially when as is the case with the current proposal additional height is accompanied by a reduction in otherwise enabled horizontal building bulk at boundaries on an overall overs and unders approach. In any event, in respect of the above I consider that the proposal is consistent with the Mixed Use zone objectives and policies, and will positively contribute to the purpose of the Mixed Use zone in this location being to support the Newmarket Metropolitan Centre and maintain the amenity values of adjacent residential and special purpose zones (due predominantly to separation distance in intervening screening). My principal reasons are: The zone methods themselves contemplate that (in some cases substantial) height above the standard height limit can still give effect to the relevant objectives and policies depending on local adverse effects and impacts on Auckland s centres. In this respect, contravention of the height limit on a site that is wellseparated from any residential zoned site (minimum 75m) or a special purpose zone (minimum 105m) is difficult to identify as inherently problematic from a policy integrity perspective. In this respect, I do not consider that the proposal will generate any material adverse urban design effect on the amenity values or other qualities of any adjacent Residential or Special Purpose zoned land. The proposal is separated from any sensitive activities sufficiently that it will not diminish residential amenity values due to intensity, shadowing, loss of visual amenity or any other effect. The closest residential or special purpose zones do not have prominent or direct lines of sight to the proposed site, and intervening buildings will, by virtue of proximity, appear larger and more visually dominant than the proposed building would. The policy term moderate intensity is not defined in the AUP. Given that in many zones horizontal mass enablements are similar and that height is the key differentiator relied on to demarcate different zones, it is building height that is the relevant indicator to measure what is moderate. Based on the Auckland Plan s definitions of low rise (1-4 storeys), medium rise (4-8 storeys), and high rise (8+ storeys), I consider that the proposal can be fairly regarded as achieving a moderate intensity. It is also noted that by dint of the AUP s internal consistency, its own methods that provide for 27m or more height in the zone must inherently give effect to the policy framework s presumption of what it means by moderate intensity. Newmarket is a significant centre in Auckland and is a renowned speciality retail area. A mixed use development (residential dominant) within a convenient and flat walking distance of it, would reinforce and support its social and economic role as a regional focal point, and not undermine it in any demonstrable way especially as Great South Road is already exhibiting the characteristics of an enterprise corridor of offices and small-scale services like cafes along its length. Given the 64 Great South Road (2017), page 20