Curio Bay Heritage Centre - southlanddc.govt.nz · 3.1 The subject site is located on the elevated...

Curio Bay Heritage Centre

Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment Report

Marion ReadPrincipal

Read Landscapes8th December 2014

14034 Southland District Council: Curio Bay Heritage CentreLandscape and Visual Effects Assessment Report – M Read

APPENDIX 4

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This report has been prepared at the request of Southland District Council to enable a full assessment of an application by the South Catlins Development and Environmental Charitable Trust to construct a Heritage Centre at Curio Bay.

1.2 The site is legally described as Section 9 Block VIII Waikawa Survey District and it encompasses an area of 5.4ha. In the terms of the operative Southland District Council Plan (the District Plan) the site is located within the Coastal Resource Area. In the terms of the Appeal version of the Proposed District Plan the site is within the Rural Zone and is identified as within the Coastal Environment and as an outstanding natural feature.

1.3 The site is a recreation reserve and is subject to a management plan under the terms of the Reserves Act 1977.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The proposal entails the construction of a Heritage Centre with associated earthworks and landscaping.

2.2 The Heritage Centre is to comprise a building with a floor area of 369m2 and associated decking comprising a further 147m2. The building is to be long and is to stand a maximum of 4.974m above existing ground level, at its eastern and higher end. The building is to face approximately north east to take advantage of the view over Porpoise Bay and Waikawa Harbour.

2.3 The building is to comprise a café, an interpretive centre, a theatre and a toilet block. Theexterior cladding and colours have not been specified, but indicative elevations have been included in the application.

2.4 A landscape plan has been included. It proposes areas of lawn around the building to provide open areas for visitors and to enable access to an existing penguin lookout. Planting of trees, shrubs and grasses is proposed around the building to provide some containment, to ‘blend into the surrounding landscape’ and to soften the form of the building.

3.0 Site Description

3.1 The subject site is located on the elevated ridge which encloses Curio Bay to its south. The site declines to the east from the vicinity of the proposed Heritage Centre building to a narrow neck, before inclining to the east to an elevated headland which encloses both Curio Bay to the south and Porpoise Bay to the north. Generally the landform declines to the north, with low cliffs dropping to the sea to the south.

3.2 Curio Bay is an irregularly shaped inlet with a more or less straight western edge extending into a large, elevated headland, and a convoluted northern edge, arching eventually to a sharp point below the eastern headland. The sea margin takes the form of steep, low cliffs. At the base of the cliffs a rock shelf, including the petrified forest, extends out to the south.

3.3 The Waikawa Curio Bay Road approaches the site at approximately right angles. Mair Road forms a ‘T’ intersection below the site. At approximately 160m to the west of this intersection a carpark is located, providing parking and access to the petrified forest. To the east the road narrows, forming the entrance to the camping ground, and meanders across the neck, climbing then to the summit of the headland. Approximately half way along this route a turnoff to the north provides access to the current Camp Office and Store.

3.4 The primary vegetation within the subject site and the adjacent Department of Conservation reserve is flax. In addition there are some Coprosma and Hebe evident, and two reasonably


APPENDIX 4

substantial stands of Cordyline australis. The flax has been planted (or managed) so as to provide pockets to form sheltered campsites. Open areas are grassed and this is apparently mown, or grazed periodically. The majority of the eastern headland is open grassland.

3.5 The proposed location of the Heritage Centre is close to the highest point of the land form to the west of the neck. It is currently accessed by a loop road off which the majority of the campsites are located. This track is to provide service access to the Centre. A large grove of Cordyline australis is present to the north of the area which is otherwise enclosed by flax, some of which would have to be removed in order to facilitate the construction of the facility. An existing penguin viewing site is located to the south east of the Centre’s proposed location, and it is intended to incorporate this into the proposed development. Two concrete water tanks which have been used to house toilets for campers are located within the area.

3.6 I understand there are a number of other developments intended within the vicinity of the subject site.

3.6.1 In association with the proposed Heritage Centre the Department of Conservation and the Southland District Council propose to realign the eastern end of Mair Road in the vicinity of the intersection with the Waikawa Curio Bay Road. This realignment is to facilitate the construction of a new visitor car park to the north west and downslope of the proposed Heritage Centre and approximately located on the existing Mair Road carriageway.

3.6.2 Consent has recently been granted by Environment Southland and a Notice of Requirement confirmed by Southland District Council to establish a wastewater treatment plant on the land at the corner of Mair Road and the Waikawa Curio Bay Road. It will be adjacent to the newly aligned Mair Road and to the north west of the subject site. The system to be constructed is a series of tanks and a conditions have been proposed as follows:

(a) A detailed landscape plan to mitigate the visual effects of the Wastewater Treatment Plant development is to be submitted to Council’s Manager Resource Management for approval, prior to a request for outline plan approval being lodged.

The landscape plan shall take into consideration the final bulk and location layout of the infrastructure on-site, including:• screening of the perimeter of the site,• screening when viewed from Mair Road,• use of the plant species listed in the Opus Landscape Report, 1 August 2014; and• provide the timeframe when planting is to be completed by.Landscaping shall be undertaken by the Requiring Authority.

and;

(c) The tanks shall be painted in recessive colours to blend in with the surrounding environment.

3.6.3 The land on which the waste water treatment plan is to be constructed is one part of a larger subdivision which was first granted consent in 2008 and varied in 2010. The site of this subdivision extended from the Haldane Curio Bay Road to the north to Mair Road in the south and had the Waikawa Curio Bay Road as its western boundary. The variation saw this land subdivided into seven lots, five with identified building platforms; one which encompasses a block of bush and extends to the corner of Mair Road and the Waikawa Curio Bay Road intersection, and a balance farm lot. Four of these residential lots are arrayed along the northern side of Mair Road and one of the three (82 Mair Road) has a dwelling on it.

3.6.4 To the north east of the subject site is located the Porpoise Bay Limited subdivision. This is located to the east of the Waikawa Curio Bay Road. It provided a total of 16 residential allotments arrayed in two rows along the sand dunes to the immediate south of the existing


APPENDIX 4

development. The consent was varied 2008. Conditions of that consent include design controls for buildings on all lots and landscaping controls over the site. Height limits were removed by the variation but other controls remain including minimum and maximum roof pitches; limitations on the materials and colours of the exteriors of buildings; a requirement that only indigenous vegetation be planted on the lots; and a limit on the total building coverage on each lot of 240m2. In addition the variation allowed for the construction nof acafé and managers accommodation on Lot 12 and for the provision of visitor accommodation on Lots 13 to 16. No dwellings or other buildings have been constructed within this subdivision at this time. Lot 17 of this subdivision, an area of approximately 2.8ha adjacent to the headland, is to be vested in Southland District Council.

3.6 At the time of my site visit a height pole was present on the site. I understand that it represented the location and height of the most western end of the proposed building. It was a little the worst for the wind, but I consider that it nonetheless provided a reasonable indication of the location and height of the building.

4.0 Landscape Character Assessment

4.1 For the purposes of this assessment I am adopting the landscape character areas proposed by Boffa Miskell in their 2006 landscape character study of the coastal margins of the Southland District undertaken for the Southland District Council. This is the Porpoise Bay District Coastal Character Area illustrated as areas 12A, 12B, and 12C on the plan from that study attached as Appendix 1.

4.2 The area is located within the south western margins of the Southland Syncline. This is characterised by numerous parallel ridges running approximately north west to south east. The coastal margin of this area is characterised by rocky headlands and cliffs alternating with broad sandy bays and deep inlets. The subject site is on a rocky headland and adjacent to a sweeping sandy bay (Porpoise Bay).

4.3 Within the vicinity of the subject site the landscape is characterised by areas of cleared farmland alternating with areas of indigenous forest, either remnant or regenerating, on steeper slopes. Together these create something of a mosaic of vegetation types. Areas of the more low-lying land are clearly wet with sedges and red tussock apparent. Road margins show a mix of indigenous vegetation, predominantly flaxes, coprosma and bracken fern, with exotic Lupinus arboreus and marram grass prominent close to the sea.

4.4 The settlement pattern of the Porpoise Bay area is characterised by a single farm homestead, located within farmland to the west of the central road access, and a row of cribs arrayed along the sand dunes to the east of the roadway. These cribs are generally relatively small buildings, in the vicinity of less than 150m2. In its northern extent the row is single, but at its more southern extent this becomes a double row. Consent exists to extend the area of dwellings further to the south. A total of 16 lots have consent, and this will continue the pattern of a double row between the road and the beach at its more southern end. A scattering of cribs is present arrayed along Mair Road to the west of the settlement and consent exists to construct three more. These are outliers which rather disrupt the general pattern of development.

4.5 The cribs arrayed along the beach front are, in the main, small buildings clad with timber and coloured white or similar pale colours. The consented subdivision to the south which, as yet, remains undeveloped, includes design controls which propose a similar range of colours for future buildings and which restricts the footprint of all buildings on each site to a maximum of 240m2.

4.6 The vegetation present on the headland itself is extremely limited in the range of species present. Flax (Phormium tenax) forms the predominant cover and it appears likely that it has been planted on the site in, or close to, its current distribution. Hebes are present on the


APPENDIX 4

steeper slopes to the south and two groves of cabbage trees are present. Interspersed among this vegetation are areas of grass.

4.7 The Boffa Miskell study proposed a series of development guidelines for the Porpoise Bay Coastal Character Area. Of particular relevance here is their recommendation that Curio Bay should be identified as an outstanding natural feature; and that the camping ground should remain under public management. On a broader scale other relevant recommendations were to encourage the planting of indigenous vegetation around new developments; and to use controls on building heights, footprints, and locations to minimise the visibility of buildings along the Porpoise Bay foreshore.

4.8 I consider that the character of the broader landscape unit is vulnerable to the effects of further development including the size and appearance of buildings; indigenous vegetation clearance; the planting of exotic vegetation; and the dispersal of development altering current settlement patterns.

4.9 The proposal entails the construction of a building with a footprint of 369m2. The heritage centre is to be 35m long (as measured off the Landscape Planting Plan Strategy) with a single roofline for most of that length (there is to be a small lean-to at its western end). For comparison, the shearing shed at the farm within the Bay has a footprint of approximately 340m2 and its longer axis is approximately 20m long (as measured off Council’s emap:Southland). An alternative comparison is with the Niagra Café which occupies abuilding with a footprint of 200m2. The size and scale of the proposed building is not consistent with the character of the landscape in the vicinity and would have an adverse effect on that character. I consider the extent of this effect would be moderate to significant. This effect could be mitigated by breaking up the form of the building into smaller modules which would approach the size of some of the larger cribs in the vicinity.

4.10 As noted above the exterior materials and colours for the building have not been specified. I consider that it is important that the building follows the design language of the local vernacular. I consider that this means that its exterior cladding materials should be restricted to weatherboard and / or corrugated iron. Roofing should be corrugated iron only. Restricting the materials palette in this manner should assist the building to appear in character with its surroundings in aspects other than its size.

4.11 The Heritage Centre is to be located within the camping ground area. While the Boffa Miskell recommendation that private development within the camp be prevented is somewhat opaque, it would seem to intend the continuance of the existing character. The inclusion of a large building within the camping ground would not achieve this.

4.12 Landscaping is proposed around the Heritage Centre building. This entails two small areas of lawn with a mix of indigenous trees and shrubs being planted around the margins of the site and the building, within the existing flax and grove of cabbage trees. This planting is appropriate in the terms of the species mix proposed, and would comply with Boffa Miskell’s recommendation that indigenous vegetation be planted around new developments. It would also provide high amenity to the Centre and its users. It is quite different to the mix of species within the site (limited largely to flax and cabbage trees), however, and would contrast with it and alter the character to a degree. The extent of this effect would be small to moderate. I consider that this could be mitigated by extending the planting of suitable indigenous species further out onto the headland undertaken as a revegetation project. It is not proposed to plant any exotic vegetation other than grass.

4.13 Constructing the proposed Heritage Centre in an elevated location on the headland would contribute to the dispersal of development in the surrounding landscape. I do consider, however, that the fact that it is not residential in function does mitigate this effect to a degree.


APPENDIX 4

4.14 In conclusion, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character of the landscape of the Porpoise Bay vicinity resulting, principally, from its size and location and the landscaping proposed. The extent of this adverse effect is moderate to significant. It could be mitigated by:

� reducing the size and/or scale of the building to better reflect the local vernacular;� by restricting the exterior materials of the building to weatherboard and corrugated

iron so as to reflect the local vernacular;� limiting the colour palette for the exterior to dark greens, browns or greys;� extending the proposed planting away from the building and incorporated it into a

larger revegetation project.

5.0 Visual Effects Assessment

5.1 The zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) within which the proposed Heritage Centre might be viewed extends up Mair Road to the ridgeline; north along the Porpoise Bay beach to just north of Cook Creek; west along the ridge enclosing the Cook Creek flats; and south to meet the ridgeline on Mair Road. From an analysis of this ZTV and my observations on the site and within its vicinity I consider that the following public and private locations may have their visual amenity affected by the proposed Heritage Centre:

� users of the Porpoise Bay beach� crib owners and users along the foreshore of Porpoise Bay� visitors to the petrified forest� viewers at the lookout on the headland� users of Mair Road� users of the Waikawa Curio Bay Road� numbers 40, 41, 82,l 100 and 110 Mair Road

Figure 1: Approximate Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Heritage Centre location

ZTV

Curio Bay

Porpoise Bay


APPENDIX 4

5.2 Below is a table summarising the extent of the effects on visual amenity from each location.

Location Extent of effect Mitigation requiredPorpoise Bay Beach Nil NoPorpoise Bay cribs Small to moderate YesPetrified Forest Small NoHeadland Moderate NoMair Road Small NoWaikawa Curio Bay Road Small to moderate YesNumbers 40, 41, 82, 100 and 110 Mair Road

Small No

Haldane Curio Bay Road Nil No

5.3 The proposed Heritage Centre would be unlikely to be visible from the Porpoise Bay Beach, except possibly towards the northern extent of the village around Cook Creek. Views from this area would be distant and would include the existing and consented development along the sand dunes. Visibility from the beach is obscured, in part, by the sand dunes, and in part by the topography of the headland. Once development occurs within the consented subdivision at the southern part of the beach, buildings on the more seaward sites will further obscure the location of the Centre from view.

5.4 It is likely that it would be possible to see the proposed Heritage Centre from the more southern cribs, both existing and yet to be developed. In these views the Centre would be on the ridgeline, and its western end would be partially obscured from view by the existing cabbage trees. It is likely that the entire ridgeline of the building would be visible, however, and so its full size and scale would be apparent and I consider that this would be an adverse effect. As this view would be to the south when the cribs are all oriented to the east, I consider that the extent of the effect on visual amenity would be small to moderate. I consider that it could be mitigated by a redesign of the Centre which broke up the linear extent of the building, and/or by further planting.

5.5 The proposed Heritage Centre would be visible, more or less end on, from the stairway structure which provides access to the petrified forest. It would not be visible from the walkway leading to the stairway. The stairs zigzag down to the beach and the centre would be in front of people undertaking the first descent. It is the case that it is intended to move the carpark and route the public wishing to visit the petrified forest via the Heritage Centre. Consequently viewers of the Centre from the stairs will be fully aware of the existence of the building prior to their descent. In addition, the two cribs at 41 Mair Road are extremely prominent in views from the stairway meaning that the experience is far from a wilderness experience anyway. Consequently, I consider that while the effect of the visibility of the Heritage Centre from the stairway to the petrified forest is adverse, I consider it to be only a small in extent and not warranting of any particular mitigation.

5.6 Currently the headland provides an expansive view over the camping ground, Porpoise Bay and the farmland to the west. This view has moderately high natural character, including pasture but also significant stands of indigenous forest and the flax covered portions of the headland itself. Little built form is apparent, and that which visible is scattered and relatively insignificant. The Heritage Centre would be a large building located in the middle of the westerly view, and as the viewing location is elevated the full extent of its roof area would be apparent. I consider that this would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of this view and that the extent of this effect would be moderate. I consider that it could be mitigated by the use of dark, recessive colours for the roofing and exterior cladding; the redesign of the building so that is broken into modules; and/or by expanding the proposed planting in area and to include more tree species which could break up the form of the building in these views.

5.7 Currently expansive views to the headland and beyond are obtainable from Mair Road as one descends to the east. These views are of moderately high natural character, including


APPENDIX 4

pasture, remnant forest, red tussock wetlands and the sea. Cribs along the beach front and buildings within the camping ground are also visible as are the cribs at 41 and 82 Mair Road. The proposed Heritage Centre would be readily visible in these views but provided the roof and building colours were recessive, I do not consider that it would detract from the visual amenity of this view more than to a small degree. A carpark full of white camper vans would have a much more deleterious effect and this is likely to occur regularly, particularly during summer months. Further, the road is a dead end and it is unlikely to have a high level of traffic.

5.8 The headland is directly in front of someone travelling south on the Waikawa Curio Bay Road. The proposed location of the Heritage Centre is slightly to the east of centre in these views. It is the case that the profile pole was not visible from this location. This suggests that the existing stand of cabbage trees on the subject site would screen the western end of the Centre from view. The eastern portion of the building would likely be visible on the ridgeline, however. While this may be desirable in terms of attracting the eye of visitors, I consider that the length of the building be broken up, either literally through the redesign of the building or visually by vegetation so that an extended length of the roofline is not visible in these views. I consider that a view of a long building on the ridgeline would have an adverse effect the extent of which would be small to moderate in extent. The Opus Consultant’s elevations provided in the application (Supporting Landscape Elevations) indicate some taller trees be planted at the western end of the building, with one adjacent to the entry. I consider that some taller vegetation should be planted around the eastern end of the building also. This would not need to be immediately adjacent to the Centre where is would shade the café’s deck and impinge on views out of the Centre, but could be some distance away, providing it was of adequate height to break the form of the building in views to the site.

5.9 Cribs are located on 41 and 82 Mair Road, and are anticipated at 40, 100 and 110 also. The cribs located at 41 Mair Road would have a clear view of the western end of the Heritage Centre. This would likely be the only built form that could be seen from this location, save the stairway to the petrified forest. I consider that the extent of the building visible from that location would be small but that the effect of this on the visual amenity of these cribs would be relatively small to moderate in extent. The crib at 82 Mair Road would have a more expansive view than that at 41, and would already have built form (other cribs, the camp buildings) within its view. While the Heritage Centre would be visible, I consider that any adverse effect on the amenity of this property would be very small. A dwelling at 40 Mair Road would possibly be able to see the western end of the Heritage Centre building. Its view would be predominantly to the north east, however, and the centre would likely be reasonably peripheral to that view. While a western elevation has not been provided it islikely that the planting proposed towards the western end of the building would provide some screening and softening to the built form and would, in my opinion, be adequate mitigation. A dwelling at 100 would have a similar view of the Centre as a dwelling on Lot 82, but slightly more distant and with dwellings on numbers 82 and 40 in its view as well. I do not consider that its visual amenity would be adversely affected to any significant degree. I consider it unlikely that a dwelling at 110 Mair Road would actually have a view of the Centre.

5.10 The subject site is obscured from view from the Haldane Curio Bay Road by topography and by the stand of remnant bush to the north west of the headland.

5.11 In conclusion, the adverse effects of the proposed building on the visual amenity of the vicinity would be small to moderate in extent. A number of mitigation methods could be employed. Moving the Centre downslope to the north so that it was not in such a prominent location would assist. Breaking up the form of the building in to smaller modules would assist in maintaining the visual amenity of the vicinity, reducing the scale and potential prominence of the building. The use of recessive colours and materials for the roof and exterior cladding of the Centre would assist in ensuring that it would not dominate views. Colours should be restricted to greys, greens or browns with a light reflectivity value of less than 16% and matt finishes should be used where possible. Any timber stains should be of a dark brown hue.


APPENDIX 4

The planting proposed would assist in breaking up the form of the building but additional planting further from the Centre building in combination with recessive materials and colours would be necessary to adequately mitigate the visual effects of the proposed building.

6.0 Landscape Classification

6.1 The Southland Coastal Landscape Study undertaken by Boffa Miskell Ltd in 2006 recommended that the Curio Bay landscape unit be identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature. This has been adopted by Southland District Council and the headland is identified as such in the appeal version of the proposed District Plan.

6.2 The petrified forest is considered to be a geological feature of importance. Topographically the landscape unit is unexceptional. Yellow Eyed penguins nest at the site which provides both an ecological and dynamic component to the natural science factors which contribute to the quality of the unit. The form of the landscape unit is unexceptional and its naturalness is compromised by the grasslands, roads, structures and flax planting. The petrified forest is highly memorable, however. The formative processes are reasonably legible, and Department of Conservation interpretation panels provide commentary. The presence of wildlife and the climatic variations provide transient value to the location. Archaeological sites are present. It is unknown if the site has particular historical associations for Pakeha, but the area has a rich history of forestry and farming. As a consequence of this analysis I concur with the Boffa Miskell study and consider that the proposed identification of the site as an outstanding natural feature is appropriate.

7.0 SDC District Plan

7.1 I understand that the application was made at such a time that the 2001 District Plan was still in force and that consequently it is the document against which it should be assessed. As the proposed District Plan of 2014 is now partially settled (subject to appeals) I understand it must also be given regard. Consequently I will assess the proposal against the provisions of both.

7.2 SDC Plan 2001

7.2.1 The subject site is located within the Coastal Rural Resource Area as illustrated on Map 38 of the Southland District Plan(01). I understand that this means that the objectives, policies and rules of S4.1 Rural Resource Areas and 4.6 Coastal Resource Area both apply.

7.2.2 OObjective RU.3To recognise the values of the District’s outstanding landscape and significant indigenous habitats and ecosystems w ithin the management framework.

The subject site is considered to be an Outstanding Natural Feature, and it is a significant habitat for the indigenous Yellow Eyed Penguin. Consequently this objective applies to the subject site.

7.2.3 Objective RU.4To maintain w here practicable and efficient, the amenity values of the rural environment.

Policy RU.4To avoid, or if unavoidable minimise, the adverse effects of clearing indigenous vegetation provided that nothing in this policy shall prevent the clearing of regenerating indigenous vegetation underneath a commercial forestry activity.


APPENDIX 4

While the clearance of flax will be undertaken in order to construct the Heritage Centre, all flaxes which are lifted are to be replanted within the reserve area. In addition, further indigenous planting is proposed. I consider that this policy is met.

7.2.4 PPolicy RU.7To mitigate or avoid the adverse effects activities have on the amenity value of the rural environment.

The development of the Heritage Centre is part of a larger project to manage visitors to the subject site in a more efficient and effective manner. I understand that a single carpark is to be developed by the Department of Conservation and located to the north west of the subject site. Visitors are to be channelled, by way of a network of paths, to the Heritage Centre in the first instance, before access to the penguin colony or the petrified forest can be gained. In my opinion this is likely to improve the general amenity of the rural environment in the vicinity by containing and managing activities in a more restricted location than is currently the case.

7.2.5 Policy RU.11To mitigate the adverse effects of activities on the significant landscapes of the District.

As noted above, I consider that, with the modifications I have proposed, the adverse effects of the Heritage Centre development on the Outstanding Natural Feature of the headland would be adequately mitigated.

7.2.6 Rule COA.2 – Buildings and Structures…In assessing any application under the Rule, Council will consider the following:� the effect of the building and any associated signage on the natural character of the

coast in terms of visual impact

As noted above, the visual impact of the proposed Heritage Centre on the visual amenity of the surroundings is assessed as being small to moderate. It is considered that these effects can be mitigated by the use of visually recessive materials and colours, and by planting. It is the case, however, that the building and landscaping will have a further visual impact on the natural character as it is perceived by viewers. The inclusion of a large building with a long continuous roof line of 32m (and a total length of 35m) within an area which has the appearance of undeveloped coastal land would detract from this perceived naturalness. Further, the landscaping proposed introduces a wide range of species which are not currently present on the subject site. While they are all appropriate, in ecological terms, for the location, their presence on the subject site will identify the area around the building as different also. I consider that the most appropriate way to avoid this is to extend the planting of other appropriate coastal species into the wider site, approaching it as a revegetation project. This would mean that over time the vegetation on the headland would alter from a flax/grass mix to a more complex coastal forest mix, both mitigating the effects of the building and increasing the actual as well as apparent natural character of the site.

7.2.7 Policy COA.1To avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of building and structures have (sic) on the coastal environment.

I consider that the proposed modifications to the mitigation planting, plus the use of recessive colours and materials on the exterior of the building would adequately mitigate the adverse effects that the building would have on the coastal environment.

7.2.8 Policy COA.2To avoid the adverse effects of development in the coastal area.


APPENDIX 4

I consider that with the modified planting plus the use of recessive materials on the exterior of the building would avoid the adverse effects of development in the coastal area.

7.2.9 OObjective COA.1To preserve, as far as is practicable, the natural character of the coast from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

It is my conclusion that the proposed development with the modifications I have recommended, meets this objective. Expanding the planting regime would, in fact, enhance the natural character of the subject site.

7.3 SDC Plan 2014

7.3.1 Objective NFL.1Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development.

Policy NFL.1Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development w ithin areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes.

The use of the subject site for a Heritage Centre is, arguably, an appropriate land use for the portion of the outstanding natural feature given that it will give access to the Yellow Eyed Penguin colony and the petrified forest.

7.3.2 Objective CE.1 Subdivision, land use and development in the coastal environment, occurs in an integrated and sustainable manner which: 1. Preserves the natural character of the coast. 2. Protects Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes.

Policy CE.1 Avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of subdivision, land use and development on the Coastal Environment.

It is considered that the use of recessive materials and colours in the construction of the Centre, and the extended planting of indigenous vegetation, would adequately mitigate the effects of the proposed land use on the coastal environment.

7.3.3 Policy RURAL.2Manage subdivision, land use and development in a manner that maintains or enhances amenity values, including rural character and landscapes.

As noted, the amenity of the vicinity can be maintained by the use of recessive colours and materials in the construction of the Centre; and the expansion of the proposed planting regime.

8.0 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

8.1 Consenting authorities, when considering an application for a resource consent, must have regard to any relevant provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPA). I have applied those which are relevant to the landscape of the Curio Bay and Porpoise Bay coastline.

7.2 Policy 6 Activities in the coastal environment(h) consider how adverse visual impacts of development can be avoided in areas sensitive to

such effects, such as headlands, and prominent ridgelines, and as far as practical and reasonable apply controls or conditions to avoid those effects.


APPENDIX 4

The proposed Heritage Centre is to be located on a prominent ridgeline on a headland. The roof line of the building will likely break the ridgeline in some views from the north. The expansion of the proposed planting around the Centre would break up the form of the building in these views and provide a backdrop reducing the visual impacts. Moving the proposed building downslope to the north would avoid this effect and the necessity to rely on vegetation as a backdrop.

(i) set back development from the coastal marine area and other water bodies, where practicable and reasonable, to protect the natural character, open space, public access and amenity values of the coastal environment;

The proposed development site is well removed from the coastal marine area. The Centre would not be visible from within the coastal marine area owing to the topography and thus its natural character and amenity would not be compromised.

7.3 PPolicy 11 Indigenous biological diversity (biodiversity)(b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of

activities on:(i) areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment

As noted above, the flax which it is necessary to remove to construct the Centre is to be replanted elsewhere on the headland. The proposed mitigation planting would introduce a range of ecologically appropriate indigenous species which would be a positive effect in this regard.

7.4 Policy 13 Preservation of natural character(1) To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from

inappropriate subdivision, use and development:(a) Avoid adverse effect on natural character in areas of the coastal environment with

outstanding natural character;

While the subject site is undoubtedly an outstanding natural feature, this is not the same as saying that it has outstanding natural character. As noted above, the natural character of the site and its surrounds has been compromised by land clearance and the construction of buildings, roads and other infrastructure. I consider that, with the mitigation recommended, the proposed development would adequately preserve the natural character of the coastal environment.

7.5 Policy 14 Restoration of natural characterPromote restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment, including by:(a) identifying areas and opportunities for restoration or rehabilitation;

(c) where practicable, imposing or reviewing restoration or rehabilitation conditions on resource consents and designations, including for the continuation of activities; and recognising that where degraded areas of the coastal environment require restoration or rehabilitation, possible approaches include:(i) restoring indigenous habitats and ecosystems, using local genetic stock where

practicable; or(ii) encouraging natural regeneration of indigenous species, recognising the need for effective weed and animal pest management; or(iii)creating or enhancing habitat for indigenous species;

The proposal as it is submitted does not promote the restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment. It is my opinion, however, that it is necessary, both for visual amenity and to avoid adverse effects on character of the vicinity, that the planting around the proposed Centre should extend out onto the headland and the Centre


APPENDIX 4

become the locus of a revegetation project. I understand that indigenous planting is required to mitigate the effects of the wastewater treatment plant to the north west of the subject site. To its north west, again, is a stand of remnant bush. I consider that there is an opportunity to reconnect this bush with the coast through the wastewater treatment site by undertaking a wider scale revegetation project. Such a project would restore indigenous ecosystems.

7.6 PPolicy 15 Natural features and natural landscapesTo 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.

It is considered that the proposed development would have some adverse effects on the outstanding natural feature on which it is to be located. It is also considered, however, that these effects can be mitigated and that there is potential for positive effects to accrue.

7.7 Policy 18 Public Open SpaceRecognise the need for public open space within and adjacent to the coastal marine area, for public use and appreciation including active and passive recreation, and provide for such public open space, including by:(a) ensuring that the location and treatment of public open space is compatible with the

natural character, natural features and landscapes, and amenity values of the coastal environment;

The proposed Heritage Centre development entails the redevelopment of the public open space on the headland. This entails the associated relocation of the carpark and new pathways to the petrified forest leading to the new Centre. The new track to the petrified forest access is to meander along the ridge to the west where it is to join the more southern half of the existing track. This would result in a much more interesting experience for visitors than the current track which leads straight over the ridge from the existing carpark.

8.0 Curio Bay / Tumu Toka Management Plan

8.1 The reserve site on which the Heritage Centre is proposed to be constructed is managed by a Management Plan which includes policy ‘Building and Structures’ Policy (iii) which states:

To require the future development of new buildings or structures to be of a design, colour and/or material and standard that relates to their surroundings and character of the reserve and mitigates any associated visual impacts.

8.2 As noted previously the proposed building is large, and would be the largest building in the vicinity. This results in adverse effects on both character and visual amenity which could be avoided by the construction of a smaller building or a building which was broken in form. It is the case, however, that in this location it is considered that planting can adequately mitigate these adverse effects and this is also discussed elsewhere.

8.3 The exterior materials and colours of the proposed building have not been specified. I consider that, as a result of the size of the building, that it is important that it appear as recessive as possible within its location. I recommend that the exterior materials should be of a type found within the vernacular architecture of the vicinity. This means limiting materials to weatherboard or corrugated iron cladding, and corrugated iron roofing. Colours should have a reflectivity which is lower than 16% and should be limited to the range of browns, greens or greys. Joinery should be of a similar colour to the roofing and guttering and down pipes should match the roof colour. These colours and materials would relate appropriately to the surroundings and to the character of the reserve, and would assist in reducing the visual impacts of the proposed building.


APPENDIX 4

9.0 Conclusion

9.1 It is proposed to construct a large building on the Curio Bay outstanding natural feature to function as a heritage centre and café. The context of this development includes a redeveloped carpark for the petrified forest; a new wastewater treatment plant, and a yet to be developed residential subdivision.

9.2 The proposed building would have a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape in the vicinity. This could be mitigated by reducing the size and/or scale of the building; by cladding it with materials which reflected the vernacular architecture of the vicinity; and by expanding the proposed planting so as to better incorporate the development into the landscape.

9.3 The proposed building would have small to moderate adverse visual effects. These could be mitigated by reducing the size and/or scale of the building; by using only matt browns, greens or greys with an LRV of less than 16% in its exterior colour palette to ensure a recessive appearance; and by expanding the proposed planting so as to better screen, soften, and break up the form of the building.

9.4 With the mitigation recommended the proposed development would comply with the objectives, policies and rules of the operative Southland District Plan with regard to landscape related issues.

9.5 With the mitigation recommended the proposed development would comply with the objectives, and policies of the appeal version of the new Southland District Plan with regard to landscape related issues.

9.6 With the mitigation recommended the proposed development would comply with the landscape related policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

9.7 With the mitigation recommended the proposed development would comply with the landscape related requirements of the Curio Bay / Tumu Toka Management Plan.

10.0 Recommended Conditions

1. The exterior materials of the Heritage Centre building shall be restricted to horizontal weatherboard and/or corrugated iron. If corrugated iron is used it may be oriented either vertically or horizontally. Roofing shall be corrugated iron only.

2. The exterior colours of the Heritage Centre building shall be selected from the range of browns, greens or greys and shall have a reflectivity value of less than 16%. Only one hue shall be selected, but more than one shade, tint or tone of that hue may be utilised. Matt finishes shall be used wherever possible. Soffits shall be exempt from this condition.

3. All guttering and downpipes shall be the same colour as the roofing.

4. Joinery shall be a shade, tint or tone of the predominant hue of the exterior of the building and shall have a reflectivity value of less than 36%.

5. Prior to construction taking place a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to Council for certification. This plan shall be based upon the Opus ‘Landscape Planting Plan Strategy’ submitted with the application. It shall include further trees in the vicinity of the eastern end of the Heritage Centre building, both to its north and south, to provide screening and a backdrop to the building in views from the north. The plan is to incorporate and protect the grove of Cordyline australis to the north of the Heritage Centre. The plan shall specify that alltrees are to be a minimum of 1.5m at the time of planting, and shrubs are to be a minimum of pB8 in grade. Once certified, and construction is completed, all planting is to be


APPENDIX 4

undertaken in the next available planting season and irrigated and maintained as necessary. Should any tree or shrub die or become diseased it shall be replaced in the next available planting season.

6. Prior to construction taking place a revegetation strategy shall be submitted to Council for certification This strategy is to encompass an area of at least 40m from the footprint of the Heritage Centre to the north, east and west, and to the boundary of the Reserve to the south. The strategy shall provide the following:

� a plant palette of ecologically appropriate species which incorporates the plant species utilised in the mitigation planting;

� a planting strategy which may be undertaken over a period of up to five years � a maintenance strategy which should incorporate regular releasing and protection

from pests;� a planting plan which indicates how the planting will integrate with the landscaping

around the Heritage Centre and with the requirements of the camping ground.The purpose of the revegetation plan is to blur the boundaries of the mitigation planting around the Heritage Centre as is not intended to diminish the area of open ground available for camping. Once certified the revegetation strategy shall be implemented beginning in the first available planting season. A maximum attrition rate of 20% of each year’s planting is allowable. Should a greater loss occur replacement planting is required during the next available planting season.

Read Landscapes

Marion ReadPrincipal


APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 4

Curio Bay Heritage Centre - southlanddc.govt.nz · 3.1 The subject site is located on the elevated...

Documents

Transcript of Curio Bay Heritage Centre - southlanddc.govt.nz · 3.1 The subject site is located on the elevated...