Ruakura Variation Landscape + Urban Design Gavin Lister 3 rd and 4 th August 2016
Introduction Qualifications and relevant experience Attached to my rebuttal evidence • Documents Percival Road Buffer • Consolidated Report • Rebuttal Evidence • Topics Landscape buffer for Percival Road • Landscape buffer for Ryburn Road • Landscape buffer for Fairview Downs • Design controls for medium density residential •
Percival Road buffer Proposed buffer relies on a combination (or layering) of several specific elements: The existing plane trees – including plugging the gaps • A planted understorey • A backdrop dense hedge 12m high • A further 10m building setback • No access across buffer to industrial area • This is a practical means of maintaining rural residential amenity for the enclave (‘Large Lot Residential)
Percival Road buffer The outstanding issue is the width of the planted buffer behind the plane trees. The notified variation proposed a 20m planted buffer (similar to BoI decision re Ryburn Rd) • Submission sought that it be increased to 40m • Submission sought it be reduced to 10m (as part of package of elements) • Response 40m understorey will not noticeably add to effectiveness of buffer • 10m is sufficient only in combination with all the other specific elements (i.e. plane trees + • plugging gaps, understorey, dense backdrop hedge, 10m further set-back, no vehicle crossing) To put it another way, 10m is sufficient given the specificity of the buffer • Recommendation: Reduce planted buffer to 10m only as part of the specific comprehensive buffer •
Ryburn Road buffer Submissions sought increases to buffer provided for by BoI Response BoI considered this matter at length • No new evidence in support of requested changes • Recommendation: No change •
Ryburn Road buffer Submission sought changes to buffer to accommodate revised staging of the Inland Port Response BoI considered this matter at length • Changes would be acceptable only if as effective as that approved by BoI decision (Figure • 25H(4) and rule 25H.5.7.4 ‘Landscape Screening’) Yet to complete a review of revised Figure and provisions (to be updated) • Recommendation: No change (unless a revised proposal is demonstrated to have no greater effects) •
Fairvew Downs buffer Submission questioned effectiveness of buffer provisions between existing Fairview Downs residential area and the Industrial Park zone Response The buffer will be effective because of the combination of the following elements: Separation distance (70m between zones) • Intervening Open Space Zone • Design controls on the nearest buildings facing Fairview Downs (Interface Design Control • provisions) Recommendation: No change •
Medium Density Housing provisions Submissions sought permitted status on sites less than 400m 2 • Response My opinion is that a design review process is preferable because good design is essential for • amenity of medium density housing, and good design cannot be engineered by rules BoI decision provided for design review by way of RD consent for lots less than 400m 2 • Notwithstanding my opinion, I provided the additional development standards should • Council be of a mind to provide for stand-alone houses as permitted activities on sites less than 400m 2 . The purpose of the standards is to help maintain amenity. Recommendation: No change •
Technical Evidence: Mr Peter Hall (medium density housing) Mr Hall Supports permitted status for development on lots less than 400m 2 • But opposes the revised development standards • Says there are examples of good medium density development on small lots • Claims there are no reasons or s32 analysis for the revised development standards • Response In my experience, good examples of medium density housing have followed design review • Reasons for the standards are in section 6.9 of my consolidated report • The standards and activity status should be seen as a package (e.g. 8m max ht is linked to no • HIRTB rule) rather than picking and choosing Recommendation: No change; or • Revert to RD status for sites less than 400m 2 (as per BoI decision) •
Technical Evidence: Mr John Goodwin (buffers for Ryburn Rd /Percival Rd interface) Mr Goodwin Says it is not possible to maintain the same character and outlook for the enclave • Response I agree – the appropriate approach is to maintain a rural residential character within the • enclave as far as reasonably practicable having regard to the industrial zoning Mr Goodwin Proposes revised landscape buffer (Figure 2-17) with respect to Ryburn Road interface • Response As discussed earlier – acceptable only with evidence that revised buffer would be as effective • as that approved by BoI decision (Figure 25H(4) and rule 25H.5.7.4 ‘Landscape Screening’) Recommendation: No changes unless supporting evidence (to be updated) •
Section 32 Updates (Percival Road buffer) 10m planted buffer will be effective as part of a comprehensive specific buffer: Tall plane trees + plugging gaps (will provide immediate height + character) • Understorey (will filter views beneath trees and provide depth to buffer) • Dense 12m hedge (will provide backstop screen) • 10m additional building setback (will provide for hedge maintenance and leverage its height • for screening) No vehicle access across buffer (will ensure integrity of buffer and maintain quiet character of • Percival Rd) Overall layering of elements will provide apparent depth to buffer • Benefits of reduced buffer = more efficient land use
Section 32 Updates (Medium Density Development Standards) Development standards for permitted activity stand-alone houses on small lots will help • achieve amenity (for occupants, neighbours and streetscape) in absence of a design review Urban design reasons for each standard in paragraph 6.9 of my consolidated report • In brief: • Height and height-in-relation-to-boundary (HIRTB) – two storey (8m), no HIRTB rule – Sufficient rear and front yards (less emphasis on side to side) – Front yard rules for amenity on narrower streets – • 5m = sufficient for car clear of footpath, provisions for porches, balconies in yard • Minimum landscaping to avoid wall to wall concrete • Front fence to define private space but maintain visibility, 50% garage door rule , and 500mm recess – to avoid streets dominated by garage doors – Door, windows and path to street – for streetscape, passive surveillance –
Conclusion of Presentation
Recommend
More recommend
