Photograph 20: View of Waipohutukawa Bay from the water (Thornton property to the left of view, Collie property to the right of view) Photograph 21: Closer range view from the water (Thornton property to the left of view, Collie property to the right of view) 3.16 Within the local area, several jetties are evident, including near Te Hue Bay, Te Huruhi Bay, Jacks Bay, Clendon Cove, Huirangi Inlet, Whiorau Bay and across the Te Rawhiti Inlet at Cooks Cove and the unnamed bay to the east on the south side of Motuarohia Island and Hahangarua Bay on Moturua Island. 10 March 2018 17013
Figure 3: Jetty locations within the local area 17013 March 2018 11
3.17 A range of jetty, gangway and pontoon styles are evident throughout the local area, as demonstrated in the following photographs. Generally speaking the more successfully integrated and less intrusive structures tend to display the following attributes: a. black stained timber finishes for all boardwalk elements; b. toe kick details to boardwalk edges rather than balustrading; c. black or dark coloured finishes to all non-timber elements including concrete, steel structures and synthetic surfaces; d. discrete safety lighting that has a two way switch (enabling it lighting to be easily switched off) and a timer system; e. confinement of the extent of the boardwalk structure to MHWS in more sheltered bays and the HAT in more exposed bays; f. a very low key and informal exposed aggregate concrete, sand, grass or gravel track on the landward side of the structure; g. where retaining or seawall structures are required, these are formed on locally sourced stone and designed to blend seamlessly into the landscape. Photograph 22: Clendon Cove boardwalk 2 Photograph 23: Clendon Cove boardwalk Photograph 24: Clendon Cove gangway Photograph 25: Clendon Cove jetty Photograph 26: Clendon Cove jetty 12 March 2018 17013
Photograph 27: Jacks Bay jetty Photograph 28: Jacks Bay jetty Photograph 29: Jacks Bay jetty Photograph 30: Jetty under construction in Clendon Cove Photograph 31: Jetty under construction in Clendon Cove Photograph 32: Jetty under construction in Clendon Cove Photograph 33: Jetty in the unnamed bay on Motuarohia Island Photograph 34: Jetty in the unnamed bay on Motuarohia Island Photograph 35: Jetty in the unnamed bay on Motuarohia Island 17013 March 2018 13
4.0 Statutory Context 4.1 The relevant planning and resource consent document in relation to the assessment of landscape and visual effects of this proposal are the: 4.6 It is my understanding that King Salmon allows minor or transitory adverse effects within coastal ONLs. Resource Management Act (RMA); NRPS RMA New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS); Northland Regional Policy Statement (NRPS); and, Northland Regional Coastal Plan (NRCP). 4.2 The location of the site within the Coastal Environment triggers consideration of s6(a), which requires as a matter of national importance, the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment and the protection of it from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. 4.3 The presence of an Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL) in the vicinity of the proposed development triggers the consideration of s6(b) which requires as a matter of national importance, the protection of ONLs from inappropriate development. NZCPS 4.4 Of particular relevance is Policy 13 Preservation of Natural Character, which seeks to: preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use and development; avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character in areas of the coastal environment with outstanding natural character (see comment below); avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal environment. 4.7 The NRPS identifies the water as having High Natural Character. The landward margin is identified as Outstanding Natural Landscape: Parekura Headland and Orokawa Peninsula as shown in Figure 4 below. The worksheet for the ONL is also included overleaf. 4.8 The relevant objectives and policies require the avoidance of adverse effects on the characteristics and qualities that make a landscape outstanding. 4.9 The avoidance of significant adverse effects is required with respect to areas of High Natural Character. The policy statement cites a number of methods that may achieve such an outcome including: NRCP a. Ensuring the location, intensity, scale and form of built development is appropriate having regard to natural elements, landforms and processes, including vegetation patterns, ridgelines, headlands, peninsulas, dune systems, reefs, freshwater bodies and their margins. b. In areas of High Natural Character, minimise to the extent practicable, vegetation removals and earthworks. c. Encourage new development to consolidate within and around existing settlements or where natural character and landscape has already been compromised. 4.10 The area is zoned Marine 2 (Conservation) Management Area under the Northland Regional Coastal Plan. This classification is applied to any part of the CMA that is not covered by any of the other five classes of management area with management objectives focussed on conserving the ecological, cultural and amenity values. 4.5 Also of relevance is Policy 15 Natural Features and Natural Landscapes: To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (a) avoid adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes in the coastal environment; and (b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment. 14 March 2018 17013
17013 March 2018 Figure 4: NRPS Mapping 15
Figure 5: NRPS ONL Worksheet 16 March 2018 17013
17013 March 2018 Figure 6: NRCP Mapping 17
5.0 Visual Catchment and Viewing Audience 5.1 As mentioned previously, there is no public access to Waipohutukawa Bay and the surrounding coastline (i.e. Omarino development) by land. As a consequence, the viewing audience is restricted to marine craft users in the vicinity of Waipohutukawa Bay and people who land in the bay making use of public access rights up to MHWS. 5.2 The proposed jetty will not be visible from dwellings on the islands across the Te Rawhiti Inlet. As mentioned previously, the Omarino Resident s Group has given their written approval to the development. 6.0 Visual, Natural Character and Landscape Effects 6.1 As explained earlier, the visual effects methodology that has been applied in this assessment is attached in Appendix 1. Visual Effects 6.2 To assist an understanding of the visual effects of the development, U6 Photomontages Ltd have modelled the view from two vantage points on the water and the adjacent beaches as attached in Appendix 2 (together with a location plan and methodology statement). Viewpoint 1: View from the beach in front of the Collie property 6.3 Like the previous, this viewpoint relates to private marine craft that chose to land in the bay. The distinctly inhabited character of the western sub-bay means that it is reasonable to expect that the viewing audience is very limited. 6.4 The configuration of the jetty, gangway and pontoon to extend from the end of the rocky promontory lends a logic to the visual composition. 6.5 An awareness of the height of the boardwalk above the rock ledge and the scale of retaining that is required to enable safe access at HAT is appreciated from this orientation. The alignment of the boardwalk to hug the coast and therefore benefit from the filtering effect of lower hanging pohutukawa limbs will minimise the impression of the boardwalk as an isolated visual element. More importantly, the use of dark visually recessive materials (including the stained timber and natural stone) means that the boardwalk and path/retaining will merge with the mottled dark tones of the vegetation clad cliff backdrop. 6.6 The pontoons and piles will be seen against a water backdrop and will be relatively prominent in the outlook. That said, the use of dark coloured finish for each of these elements will ensure that they are not highly reflective. 6.7 Further, whilst the existing Collie dwelling is not visible in the photomontage, in views from the beach, the viewer can also see the large scale dwelling in the bay. This means that the proposed structures are seen within the wider visual context of a distinctly inhabited and modified bay which provides a contextual fit for the development. 6.8 On balancing these considerations, and in particular, factoring in the very limited viewing audience that is likely to be exposed to this outlook, adverse visual effects in relation to this audience are assessed as Low. Viewpoint 2: View from the beach in front of the Thornton property 6.9 The viewing audience afforded this outlook is limited to private marine craft that land in the Thornton sub- bay. Again, the distinctly inhabited nature of the sub-bay is such that it is reasonable to assume that this viewing audience is very limited. 6.10 The boardwalk/jetty and part of the gangway will be seen against a vegetation clad cliff backdrop. The use of a dark coloured finish for each of these elements will ensure that they are visually recessive. 6.11 The use of a natural stone edge to the retaining structure adjacent the path will ensure that this aspect of the development also blends with the backdrop. 6.12 The pontoons and piles will be seen against a water backdrop and will be relatively prominent in the outlook. That said, the use of dark coloured finish for each of these elements will ensure that they are not highly reflective. 6.13 Overall, the configuration of the jetty, gangway and pontoon to extend from the end of the rocky promontory lends a logic to visual composition. 6.14 Further, the very obvious visual connection and close proximity between the dwelling (and its private curtilage) and the proposed jetty that is available from this location will reinforce this visual logic and, as for the Collie beachfront, provides a contextual fit for the development. 6.15 In addition, the light coloured and prominent temporary pontoon that is visible throughout the summer months from the beachfront in this part of Waipohutukawa Bay will be removed as part of the proposed development. 6.16 On balancing these considerations, and in particular, factoring in the very limited viewing audience that is likely to be exposed to this outlook, adverse visual effects in relation to this audience are assessed as Low. Viewpoint 3: Closer range view from the water 6.17 In views from the water near the coastline (and within the larger embayment associated with Waipohutukawa Bay), the rocky promontory upon which the proposed jetty is to be located, reads as a natural break between the two sub-bays that make up Waipohutukawa Bay. The dwellings at the 18 March 2018 17013
Thornton property (to the left of view) and the Collie property (to the right of view) are clearly visible, with the dwelling at the Collie property forming a prominent element in the view. 6.18 Hints of the private access road are visible in places and together with ridgeline (maintenance) access tracks, these elements form the only disruption to the cloak of regenerating bush throughout the steep hillslopes backdropping the bay. 6.19 The sweep of sandy beach in front of each property in combination with the pohutukawa fringed rocky cliffs framing each beach and the bush clad backdrop unite to form a visually coherent outlook. However the scale of built development evident in the bay creates the impression of a distinctly modified and inhabited coastal landscape. 6.20 It should also be noted that this viewing location is only likely to be experienced by marine craft that deliberately choose to entire the wider embayment roughly defined by Tokatokahau Point (to the west) and Te Korowhiti to the east (- refer Figure 2). 6.21 From this distance, the timber jetty and all of the gangway, pile and pontoon elements will be seen against the visually complex backdrop of the pohutukawa fringed rocky promontory in the centre of the bay. The landward elements of the development will be relatively visually indistinct from this orientation. 6.22 The development will introduce built modification into a portion of the bay that is currently undeveloped and reads as a break between the developed areas on either side. 6.23 The dark and visually recessive character of all visible built elements will ensure that they blend with the dark tones of the vegetation clad cliff backdrop and do not draw the eye in this view. In combination with the quite different and considerably more prominent visual character of the proposed development to the built development on either side, this will avoid the impression of development appearing to sprawl continuously throughout Waipohutukawa Bay. 6.24 The typically light colouration of boats tied up at the jetty are likely to draw visual attention to the structure, however this is a temporary effect and not an uncommon sight in the Bay of Islands coastal landscape where there are frequently moored vessels. I would also note that this is not an uncommon site in the eastern portion of the bay where vessels are frequently anchored off the beach or tied up at the temporary pontoon. 6.25 Whilst the temporary pontoon is not shown in the photomontage, this forms a prominent visual element in the view throughout the summer months. This element will be removed as part of the proposed development. 6.26 On balancing these considerations, adverse visual effects in relation to this audience are assessed as Low. Viewpoint 4: Longer range view from the water 6.27 The character of the outlook for viewers further out from the coast is similar to that described above with the exception that the reduced proximity of the viewer to land decreases the viewer s awareness of the scale and character of existing built development in each of the sub-bays resulting in a greater impression of visual coherence and a lessened awareness of the level of modification in each of the sub-bays. Balanced against this is a reduced appreciation of the visual complexity associated with the vegetation and rocky cliffs edging the coastline. 6.28 It is reasonable to assume that this viewpoint represents the distance from Waipohutukawa Bay of the majority of marine craft moving through this stretch of the Bay of Islands, as it corresponds to a path that is well clear of headlands and shallow waters. 6.29 The majority of the timber jetty and all of the gangway, pile and pontoon elements will be seen against the visually complex backdrop of the pohutukawa fringed rocky promontory in the centre of the bay. The landward elements of the development will be visually indistinct from this orientation. 6.30 The diminishing effects of distance will contribute an appreciable moderating effect. The dark, visually recessive character of all of the visible structures will minimise their reflectivity and ensure that they will be virtually indiscernible at this range. 6.31 The typically light colouration of boats tied up at the jetty are likely to draw visual attention to the structure, however this is a temporary effect and not an uncommon sight in the Bay of Islands coastal landscape. 6.32 At this distance the existing pontoon is expected to be relatively indistinct rendering its removal neutral in terms of visual effects. 6.33 On balancing these considerations, adverse visual effects in relation to this audience are assessed as Low- Negligible. Natural Character Effects 6.34 Key aspects of natural character include: the tidal waters of the bay; the relatively unobstructed sandy beach (excepting the temporary pontoon at the Thornton property); the pohutukawa fringed rocky promontory in the centre of the bay; the pohutukawa clad cliffs on either side of the bay; and, the almost continuous regenerating bush clad hillslopes behind the bay. 6.35 The proposed development will not disturb the pohutukawa clad cliffs on either side of the bay nor the regenerating bush clad hillslopes behind the bay. 6.36 Relying on the Arborist Assessment prepared by Peers Miller Brown, the effects of the development on the pohutukawas suggests that this aspect of natural character will not be adversely impacted. 6.37 The proposed development will however introduce built modification into a part of the rocky coastline that is currently devoid of structures. 6.38 The proposed construction method (timber piles) will ensure minimal disturbance to the rocky ledges. 6.39 However, the introduction of structures of the scale proposed will inevitably reduce the perceived naturalness (as opposed to biophysical naturalness) of a portion of Waipohutukawa Bay that is currently devoid of structures. 6.40 As demonstrated in the preceding visual assessment, the sympathetic siting and sensitive design of all structures will ensure that built development sits reasonably comfortably into the setting. The use of the sea floor mooring system is also sympathetic to these intentions, minimising the number of visible pile elements. 17013 March 2018 19
6.41 The way finding lighting will introduce lighting in an area that currently has a very low level of artificial lighting. The proposal to use way finding lighting only (i.e. with a low lux level), fixed to the landward facing toe kick, with a two way switch and timer will ensure that this aspect of the development is as discreet as possible. 6.42 Inevitably, the development will see boats sitting in the middle of the bay. These elements are typically light coloured and highly reflective, serving to increase the perception of development in the bay. However, as previously described, marine activities form an established component of the landscape character of the Bay of Islands and the eastern end of Waipohutukawa Bay (i.e. the temporary pontoon and frequently anchored boats at the Thornton property). For these reasons, vessels tied up at the proposed jetty will not appear as out of keeping with the wider coastal character. 6.43 Further, the clear visibility of built development throughout each sub-bay contributes an appreciable moderating effect with respect to natural character effects. 6.44 On balancing these considerations, adverse natural character effects are assessed to be Low. Landscape Effects 6.45 Generally, the proposed development seeks to minimise adverse landscape effects. 6.46 The sharing of a jetty between two properties avoids the potential need for two jetties in Waipohutukawa Bay. 6.47 Again, relying on the Arborist Assessment prepared by Peers Miller Brown, vegetation effects are assessed to be acceptable. 6.48 In an attractive coastal location of this nature, the location, form, scale, colour and des ign of all aspects of the development are of critical importance in determining whether the proposal generates adverse landscape effects. 6.49 As outlined in the preceding analysis, the location of the structure on a localised promontory (rather than on a beach or perpendicular to a long cliff line), the modest construction footprint, use of locally sourced stone, use of dark visually recessive materials, alignment of the boardwalk to hug the coast, sea floor mooring system, low key lighting and boardwalk design that sees the use of a toe kick rather than balustrading, are all critical design devices that have been employed to minimise the visual presence of the development within the bay. Overall, the proposal reflects the character of successfully integrated jetty development within the local area. 6.50 Further, the existing visible development at Waipohutukawa Bay provides an important context for the proposal in that it will read as part of the relatively typical water based facilities associated with many of the inhabited bays in the local area. 6.51 Overall, the visually recessive character of all built elements will ensure that the proposed development does not draw visual attention or detract from the 'sense of place' associated with Waipohutukawa Bay. 6.52 The absence of other jetties along this particular stretch of coastline (together with the proposal that the jetty is shared by two properties) will avoid the perception of a proliferation of jetties along this stretch of the south side of the Bay of Islands. Further, as outlined in the visual effects discussion, the recessive character and contrasting visual character of the proposal in comparison to the domestic development in each of the sub-bays will avoid the impression of development sprawling across the full extent of Waipohutukawa Bay. 6.53 As outlined in the previous discussion of natural character effects, the existing modified and built context of the bay provides an important moderating effect with respect to landscape effects, as does the consented temporary pontoon. Each of these existing developments suggest a tolerance for the relatively sympathetic change associated with the jetty proposal (and noting that the temporary pontoon will be removed as part of the proposal). 6.54 On balancing these considerations, landscape effects are assessed to be Low. 7.0 Assessment against Relevant Statutory Criteria 7.1 With respect to the statutory documents of relevance to the subject site, objectives and policies germane to an assessment of visual, natural character and landscape effects focus on the following key themes: Natural Character the preservation of natural character and the avoidance of significant adverse effects on natural character; and, the avoidance of adverse effects on the characteristics and qualities that make the landscape outstanding. 7.2 The preceding discussion of natural character effects demonstrates that the proposal will not generate significant adverse natural character effects. 7.3 Whilst the development will modify a portion of the Waipohutukawa Bay coastline, it will occur within the immediate context of rural residential development and within a wider context in which scattered coastal structures are an established and accepted part of the coastal environment. 7.4 The location of the structure enables it to be used by two properties thereby avoiding the potential proliferation of such structures in this part of the Bay of Islands. The scale and from of the development is also consistent with successfully integrated jetty developments within the wider area. ONL 7.5 The ONL within which the site is located (Parekura Headland and Orokawa Peninsula) acknowledges the presence of built development in bays, describing it to be focused in embayments leaving the headlands and peninsulas free of development. I also note that the ONL mapping throughout the wider area coincides with a number of bays in which jetties are already evident, suggesting a certain tolerance for such structures in these high value landscapes. 20 March 2018 17013
7.6 The location of the jetty on the small rock promontory in the centre of Waipohutukawa Bay, rather than along the extensive rocks coastline and headlands to the west and eastern sides of the bay is considered to be sympathetic to this basic landscape patterning. 7.7 The occurrence of other similarly scaled jetty structures throughout the wider coastal landscape (including within ONLs) means that the proposal will not compromise the Representativeness values. The relatively discreet character of the development together with the moderate ranking (and therefore moderate sensitivity) of the area with respect to Rarity is such that these values will not be diminished. 7.8 The preceding discussion of visual effects demonstrates that the development will not detract from the Coherence, Diversity and Complexity and Vividness values of the area. Importantly the existing visual patterning and structure of sandy beaches interspersed with rocky headings and promontories will remain unchanged, as will the legibility of the rock ledges and simple cliff/beach interface. The use of loose locally sourced boulders to naturalise the retaining wall edges places an important role in this regard. 7.9 With respect to Naturalness and Intactness, the visually recessive character of the development will ensure that the landscape forms and patterns prevail and unify over that of development. The jetty itself will reinforce the connection between the land-based development and the sea, much in the way that other successfully integrated jetties throughout the Bay of Islands currently do. Further, it is noted that built development is acknowledged in the description of the ONL suggesting additional development of the scale and character proposed is unlikely to be incongruous. 7.10 The preceding discussion of visual and natural character effects reveals that the proposal will not detract from the Legibility of the landscape, as the underlying landscape structure and erosion processes that have shaped this portion of coastline will still be readable. 7.11 The visual fit of the proposal with other successfully integrated developments of this nature and scale, together with the rural residential context will ensure the Sensory Qualities of the area are not diminished. Rather the development will read as a well-integrated jetty facility typical of successfully integrated coastal structures already in place throughout the Bay of Islands. 7.14 Similarly, the moderate values of the area in terms of Shared and Recognised Values suggest a moderate sensitivity to change. As the ONL worksheet observes, the wider context of the southern side of the Bay of Islands is popular as a safe anchorage in bad weather. Within this associative context, the character and nature of the proposed development is considered to be in keeping. 7.15 Relying on the iwi consultation and the absence of identified archaeological sites in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development it is my understanding that adverse effects in relation to Spiritual, Cultural and Historical Associations will be negligible. 7.16 Overall, the proposed development will avoid adverse effects on the various characteristics and qualities for which the area is valued. 8.0 Conclusion 8.1 In conclusion, the carefully considered location, design and visually recessive character of all aspects of the built development, will ensure that the proposed development sits comfortably within this high value coastal landscape setting. 8.2 On balance, the proposal will give rise to adverse visual, natural character and landscape effects that are no more than minor. Further, the proposal is consistent with national and regional policy that seek to safeguard the visual amenity, natural character and landscape values of this portion of Bay of Islands coastline. Bridget Gilbert Landscape Architect B. Hort. Dip. L.A. ALI ANZILA (Registered) T 09 360 4129 M 021 661650 E bridget@bgla.nz 7.12 The proposal will not impact upon the water conditions component of the areas Transient Values. The carefully managed pruning of pohutukawa limbs (as required by the Arborist Report s recommendations) will ensure that the development does not adversely impact on the dramatic flowering display of pohutukawa in the area. 7.13 Whilst it is accepted that the area is reasonably remote and off the primary boating corridor, rural residential development and scattered jetties are clearly evident throughout this portion of the coastline. As such, the introduction of a sympathetically designed jetty will not disturb the sense of Remoteness and Wildness in this part of the Bay of Islands. 17013 March 2018 21
Appendix 1: Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects General Landscape and visual impacts result from natural or induced change in the components, character, or quality of landscape. Usually these are the result of landform or vegetation modification or the introduction of new structures, activities, or facilities into the landscape. Landscape effects include effects on topographic, vegetative, and hydrological features. Landscape effects also refer to impacts on settlement patterns, historic and cultural features, and the general landscape character or sense of place of an area. Adverse impacts upon landscape values typically arise where discontinuity or discord is evident between what is proposed, and both the existing environment which provides its setting and the environment foreseeable in terms of the District Plan. In this instance, the main concerns in relation to any discontinuity or discord arise from the effects of the proposed development on the character of Waikopou Bay and this portion of the Waiheke coastline. Visual effects form a component of landscape effects. This assessment analyses the potential visual effects that may be generated by the proposal and is based on: the background and context within which the development would be viewed; the proportion of the built form (including earthworks) that will be visible, determined by the observer s position relative to the objects being viewed; the number and type of viewers and their location in relation to the site; and the ability to integrate structures and activities with mitigation planting. Visual effects are ranked as follows: Negligible corresponds to a situation where the proposed development is barely discernible with respect to effects in relation to existing visual landscape or outlook. Effects in relation to landscape (and natural character) values are rated as follows: Very High corresponds to a situation where the proposed development will significantly (negatively) change the character or quality of the existing landscape (or natural character) values of the site and/or the surrounding area; High corresponds to a situation where the proposed development will generate a high adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing landscape (or natural character) values of the site and/or surrounding area, with the scale of adverse effect considered to extend above the normal level, or be great in amount, value, size or intensity ; Moderate corresponds to a situation where the proposed development will comprise an adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing landscape(or natural character) values of the site and/or the surrounding area, with the scale of adverse effect considered to be average in amount, intensity or degree ; Low corresponds to a situation where the proposed development is unlikely to comprise an adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing landscape (or natural character) values of the site and/or the surrounding area, with the scale of adverse effect considered to be below average in amount, extent or intensity ; and, Negligible corresponds to a situation where the proposed development is barely discernible with respect to effects in relation to landscape (or natural character) values of the site and/or the surrounding area. Very High corresponds to a situation where the proposed development will significantly (negatively) change the character or quality of the existing visual landscape or outlook; High corresponds to a situation where the proposed development will generate a high adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing visual landscape or outlook, with the scale of adverse effect considered to extend above the normal level, or be great in amount, value, size or intensity ; Moderate corresponds to a situation where the proposed development will comprise an adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing visual landscape or outlook, with the scale of adverse effect considered to be average in amount, intensity or degree ; Low corresponds to a situation where the proposed development is unlikely to comprise an adverse effect on the character or quality of the existing visual landscape or outlook, with the scale of adverse effect considered to be below average in amount, extent or intensity ; and, For the purposes of evaluating the need for notification, it is generally regarded that adverse effects rated as Moderate or higher correspond to a more than minor effect. Effects rated as Moderate Low and Low correspond to a minor effect and effects rated as Negligible correspond to a less than minor effect. 22 March 2018 17013
Appendix 2: Photomontages 17013 March 2018 23
Photo Viewpoint 1 Shooting date: 07 April 2017 12:33 p.m Viewpoint camera location (Geodetiv Datum 2000, Mt Eden Circuit): 349836.70 me / 980659.60 mn Camera elevation (One tree point MSL Datum): 1.48 m Camera: Canon EOS 5D Mark III FFDSLR 24.0mm focal length PREPARED BY U6 PHOTOMONTAGES LIMITED 09 625 0066 Photo Viewpoint 2 Shooting date: 07 April 2017 13:01 p.m Viewpoint camera location (Geodetiv Datum 2000, Mt Eden Circuit): 350050.00 me / 980780.20 mn Camera elevation (One tree point MSL Datum): 2.18 m Camera: Canon EOS 5D Mark III FFDSLR 24.0mm focal length Photo Viewpoint 3 Shooting date: 07 April 2017 13:21 p.m Viewpoint camera location (Geodetiv Datum 2000, Mt Eden Circuit): 349834.60 me / 980957.90 mn Camera elevation (One tree point MSL Datum): 1.46 m Camera: Canon EOS 5D Mark III FFDSLR 24.0mm focal length Photo Viewpoint 4 Shooting date: 07 April 2017 13:24 p.m Viewpoint camera location (Geodetiv Datum 2000, Mt Eden Circuit): 349600.10 me / 981441.20 mn Camera elevation (One tree point MSL Datum): 1.41 m Camera: Canon EOS 5D Mark III FFDSLR 24.0mm focal length Camera location maps WAIPOHUTUKAWA BAY JETTY PHOTOMONTAGE VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS AND IMAGE DATA Scale: NTS Resource Consent Issue Date of issue: 07 September 2017
PREPARED BY U6 PHOTOMONTAGES LIMITED 09 625 0066 EXISTING SITUATION PHOTOMONTAGE OF THE PROPOSED WAIPOHUTUKAWA BAY JETTY PHOTOMONTAGE 2 Photo viewpoint 2 Orientation of view (N=0 o, E=90 o): 270 o West Horizontal field of view: 74 degrees / Vertical field of view: 27 degrees Scale: The correct reading distance is 260mm (when this document is reproduced at A3) Resource Consent Issue Date of issue: 07 September 2017 PRINTING: THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE PRINTED ON A3 SIZE PAPER SCALED AT 1:1 (100%). DO NOT USE PRINT OPTIONS FIT TO PAPER OR SHRINK TO PRINTABLE AREA
PREPARED BY U6 PHOTOMONTAGES LIMITED 09 625 0066 EXISTING SITUATION PHOTOMONTAGE OF THE PROPOSED WAIPOHUTUKAWA BAY JETTY PHOTOMONTAGE 3 Photo viewpoint 3 Orientation of view (N=0 o, E=90 o): 157.5 o South-southeast Horizontal field of view: 74 degrees / Vertical field of view: 27 degrees Scale: The correct reading distance is 260mm (when this document is reproduced at A3) Resource Consent Issue Date of issue: 07 September 2017 PRINTING: THIS DOCUMENT SHOULD BE PRINTED ON A3 SIZE PAPER SCALED AT 1:1 (100%). DO NOT USE PRINT OPTIONS FIT TO PAPER OR SHRINK TO PRINTABLE AREA