attachment 8 landscape - auckland council · redoubt road/mill road 26.02.15 peake design ltd 5...

Attachment 8

Landscape

PE KE DESIGN

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PO Box 104086, Lincoln North, Auckland 0654 Phone: 09 838 4143 Fax: 09 838 4146 Email: [email protected]

Landscape and Visual Assessment For Redoubt Road – Mill Road Corridor Project Addendum Report Prepared for: Auckland Transport Private Bag 92250 Auckland 1142 Prepared by: Sally Peake Principal, Peake Design Ltd Registered NZILA Landscape Architect

REDOUBT ROAD/MILL ROAD

26.02.15 PEAKE DESIGN LTD

2

Peake Design Ltd was requested by AECOM, on behalf of Auckland Transport, to undertake

an evaluation of the potential landscape and visual effects associated with proposed works

associated with the Redoubt Road-Mill Road corridor project. This evaluation was included

as Appendix B to the Assessment of Environmental Effect s (AEE).

This addendum report has been prepared in response to the preliminary comments in

relation to the landscape, urban design and visual effects matters raised in an e-mail from

Auckland Council’s Principal Planner, Vrinda Moghe, sent 14th December 2014.

The report format sets out each matter numerically with the response below.

Generally, it is noted that the purpose of the Notices of Requirement that the AEE relates to

is to plan for an appropriate corridor designation envelope and assess effects of the

indicative alignment. For this reason, the developed design and details have not yet been

undertaken and will form part of preparation of the Outline Plan of Works applications

(OPW). The robustness of the OPW mechanism is guaranteed by both the NoR conditions

and RMA provisions. Accordingly, where further information and assessment is required

the NoR conditions are propose appropriate methods including the preparation of the

Urban Design and Landscape DWP that Council will have the ability to comment on through

the OPW process.

Council queries and associated response.

1. Retaining walls: the ‘look’ of each type of retaining wall and the approximate height. Ideally photographic images of each type. The location and type of retaining wall are shown on dwgs. 30-0000-CD-0501 to 0516 that were included in the NoR application. The plans show six types of new wall and locations of existing wall. A description of the location and general information on height is provided below. The Urban Design and Landscape DWP will be amended requiring further detail at the OPW stage. Concrete block walls with scoria facing occur in Character Area 1 (approx. chainage 0000-1300 and are intended to provide continuity with the existing stone walls, as described in the Urban Design and Landscape Study. A typical section is shown on dwg. 30-0000-CD-0755. Retaining walls in this character are extensive as the available width for widening is severely constrained by existing houses. Heights vary with some sizeable walls between ch.60 & 100 (3m high). Retaining walls above 2m also occur between ch660 & 920. Heights above 1.5m continue to ch960. While the road environment will change as a result of the walls, they are a common feature and are consistent with the existing character. The visual effects will be largely experienced by drivers and pedestrians rather than residents as the existing ground will be higher than the road reserve (although they may also be closer where land take occurs).



3

Image of typical Auckland scoria wall Timber post and panel walls are used where the streetscape appearance is less important or there are existing timber fences. They occur in Character Area 1 (between ch700 and 1300) with small lengths in Character Area 2 (ch 1300-1400 and 2900-2950) and Character Area 4 (ch2920-3220). There are also limited areas along Murphy’s Road, associated with property entries and the Thomas Road intersection. Typical sections are shown on dwgs. 30-0000-CD- 0751 & 0752 in the NoR Volume 3 drawings set. Heights vary. In Character Area 1 taller sections are shown at ch720 (2m+) and ch760 (2.5m+). Elsewhere, notably from ch860-1300 height is less than 1.5m and generally less than 1m.

In Character Area 4 the walls face the road and reach a height of more than 4m along the excess section of Redoubt Road. Houses are generally screened along this road, however, and it is not anticipated that the wall would result in significant effects. Currently mixed native planting is shown along the edge of this road, and could include taller screen species, depending on the detailed planning of the road and wall.

The sections along Murphy’s Road/ Thomas Road are very localised but will be seen in conjunction with substantial vertical concrete MSE walls (see below). As a result, the effects of these walls on visual amenity and landscape quality/character will be limited.

Example of timber retaining wall

Piled concrete & soil nailed walls are located in Character Area 4 (ch4620-4800) where it then abuts South Mill Road gully bridge. This is a very tall concrete wall up to 10.45m high and required for structural reasons. Bush extension/native revegetation is proposed behind the wall but will not entirely screen it. The wall will not be evident from public vantage points as it faces away (i.e. on the opposite side of the new road alignment) when viewed from the pre-existing Mill Road corridor. Further investigation at the detailed design stage will be required to ensure it is appropriately treated/designed.

A piled concrete & soil nailed wall is also necessary at the top of Murphys Road (ch1700-1820) where it meets Redoubt Road for similar structural reasons. This area has been the subject of numerous investigations into alternative alignments and the assessment of biophysical and landscape quality effects identifies that there will be



4

major change to the existing landform and removal of a number of exotic trees. Effects are rated as moderate within the context of change, although the wall reaches heights of more than 9m. Further investigation at detailed design stage will be undertaken in this area with regard to wall design/treatment and planting to minimise visual amenity effects during the OPW process. This will be undertaken as part of preparation of the Landscape Plan for the corridor required by designation condition 27. A detailed assessment of effects for adjacent neighbours will also be necessary and lodged as part of the OPW applications once the details of the design are known.

Example of piled concrete wall (Christchurch)

Proposed boundary treatment (Urban design and landscape Study)

Gabion basket walls are proposed at culvert head walls. Their detailed design and location will be undertaken in association with the stormwater ponds. Only one location is currently shown on the drawings in NoR Volume 3 – at ch1200 and ch300-420 on Murphys Road. A maximum height of 3.26m is currently shown on the sections and a typical design is shown on dwg. 30-0000-CD-0753.



5

Example of gabion baskets wall (see above also) MSE walls are used in areas of fill. There are two types proposed – green Terramesh walls and Concrete MSE walls. Drawings of the walls are shown on 30-0000-CD- 0754 & 0756. Green Terramesh walls are proposed in Character Area 2 adjacent to Totara Park ch2300-2700. The wall will not be readily apparent as it is on a gentle gradient and will be planted with low shrubs or ground cover. The design of the wall and its interface with the park will need to be managed as part of the levels along the whole interface as acknowledged in the assessment.

Examples of green terramesh (Geofabrics)

Concrete MSE walls are proposed along Murphys Road (ch1200-1600) and in Character Area 4, close to Mill Road. The height difference at the northern end of the wall, close to the stormwater pond on Murphys Road, is 10m. Smaller walls are located on the western side of the road below long banks and are proposed to avoid impacts on vegetation and private access ways. Further investigation will be necessary in this area with regard to wall location and planting as part of preparation of the corridor landscape plan (Condition 27) and submitted as part of the OPW.

2. Noise walls: the ‘look’ and height of each type. Ideally photographic images of each type. The LVA did not make an assessment of ambient noise and at the time of preparation no noise walls were proposed. Subsequently, a preliminary investigation of potential properties where acoustic protection may be achieved by noise fencing has been carried out. These are located at 2A, 4, 26, 104, 135, 326 and 353 Redoubt Road; 1 Santa Monica Place; 157 Murphys Road; 1325 & 2/1327 Alfriston Road; 116 & 140 Ranfurly Road; and 222 & 232 Mill Road. The majority of these properties



6

already have a boundary fence or hedge, and it may be desirable to replace like with like. Generally, noise walls should be designed in relation to their context and may vary in their specificity. A nominal height of 1.8m is currently assumed with no gaps under or between panels. It is recognised, however, that although such walls are a familiar element in the context of an urban environment, there is potential for taller walls or fences to be a dominant structure. Consideration should therefore be given to integrating the walls with planting and/or bunds as opposed to being totally independent structures. tThe Urban Design and Landscape DWP condition will be amended to require detailed landscape design for walls and fences.

Example of timber noise wall with climbers (Hill Road)

Example of timber noise wall with ponga cladding

Example of Onduline noise wall

3. A series of 1:1000 scale plans for the corridor that show the road alignment, footpaths, cycleways, the extent of batter slopes, retaining structures (with ‘type’ keyed in and indication of height), existing vegetation to be retained and protected, proposed planting (with planting ‘type’ keyed in), noise walls (if required- materials and height). Plans drawn on aerial base plan to enable an understanding of the context. The information is currently shown in the plans appended as Appendix A to the Urban Design and Landscape Study and the drawings set in Volume 3 of the NoR. It is considered that showing all the information on an aerial plan at this scale would not be legible and that the drawings provided are sufficient for this stage of the project. A survey of existing vegetation to be retained and protected will be carried out once consultation and refinement of the alignment has been carried out as part of detailed design. This survey will inform preparation of the landscape plan



7

required by proposed designation condition 27 and will be prepared as part of the OPW process.

4. A series of typical sections through each character area that demonstrate the spatial relationship between the corridor, footpaths, cycleway, retaining, noise walls, mitigation planting, adjacent dwellings/other land-uses (e.g. park). This should include the ‘worst case’ scenario for each character area. A series of typical sections for the character areas and road intersections are included in the Urban Design and Landscape Study (Appendix B). In addition the sections have captions that identify relevant urban design and landscape matters that require consideration. Additional information on retaining walls and noise walls is provided in this addendum report that describes the ‘worst case’ scenario for each character area. Dwgs. 30-0000-CD-0021 to 0031 also include typical road sections, showing the spatial relationship of elements within and either side of the road corridor.

5. More detail with respect to the ‘look’ of the bridges. This may take the form of photographic imagery of the sort of structure anticipated or an indicative ‘sketch up’ model view. The bridge design is preliminary currently and the requested information is not available pending further design. Dwgs. 30-0000-BR-0651 to 0654 in the Volume 3 drawings set provide the available information. It is noted that visual imagery of the current bridge designs relative to their bush setting are being prepared and will be provided under separate cover.

6. A clear description of which residential properties will be affected by retaining structures, noise walls, vegetation losses etc. This information is not yet available although the plans at NoR Volume 3 and in Appendix B (Urban Design and Landscape Study) to the NoR indicate where all retaining walls and vegetation planting is to occur. Examples of noise walls have been provided above at Q2. . Analysis of specific effects for individual properties will be undertaken once consultation and refinement of the alignment has been carried out as part of detailed design and will inform the OPW process. A schedule of properties affected is included in each of the NoRs that are documented in Volume 1 of the application.

7. Typical retaining wall/ noise wall mitigation options (e.g. this could take the form of a series of indicative sections and detail plans that show a range of conditions and possible solutions and include ‘worst case’ scenarios). A detailed description of retaining walls and noise walls is provided above at Q2, including images of typical walls and boundary treatment. Refer also to the response to item 4.

8. Check for consistency between the Urban Design Evaluation plans and final Landscape Concept Plans as discrepancies apparent (e.g. MSE wall planting, ‘cohesive and coordinated’ planting approach etc) Landscape treatment is an integral part of the project, as outlined in the Urban Design and Landscape Study (Appendix B to the NoR) and summarised below. Condition 27.3 requires that the proposal is designed to be consistent with the defined principles and design strategies, including:



8

Character: to provide a unique and identifiable character that is appropriate to the context of the corridor, and which includes the natural, suburban and rural character. Continuity: to achieve a consistent, legible design framework for the whole corridor. Flexibility: requires flexible design responses to accommodate multi-modal users; urban/rural character and the natural and topographical landscape features which the site presents. The study acknowledges that the planting scheme will need to provide greening effects on engineering slopes and structures where appropriate to mitigate visual impact, assist with geotechnical stability, increase the level of amenity for pedestrian and other users, and have ecological benefits. Planting around/on slopes will typically use trees, climbing and trailing species to maximise the greening effect; and loss of existing trees will be a major consideration along the site boundaries, and a number of planting related strategies are [necessary] to positively deal with tree and planting issues to provide benefits to both the public and private. Providing adequate space to incorporate tree and shrub planting is a positive strategy to screen fences or other elements, provide pedestrian or public amenity, and strengthen the ecological values of the corridor. The conceptual design approaches for each character area are in accordance with the study, noting that flexibility is required to meet the performance and engineering requirements. A review will be carried out as part of the OPW to ensure that the concepts are carried through to the developed and detailed design stages of the project.

9. A more thorough description of the proposal in the LVA: cut and fill; retaining

structures (e.g. scale, materials, height); retaining wall mitigation planting; nose wall mitigation planting). It is considered that the LVA has been prepared to a level that is consistent with the level of assessment possible and required for a NOR application. The Environmental Management Framework proposed (see section 6 of AEE) ensures that effects will be appropriately assessed and managed as detailed design takes place. Notwithstanding this, additional information has been provided in this addendum report relating to retaining structures and noise walls. With regard to cut and fill, there is no one place in the NoR AEE where this information can be found. The road sections provide the best guide to the magnitude of change with regard to earthworks, with additional information in sections 11.5 and 11.11 of the NoR AEE. An estimated total of 1.26Mm3 earthworks will be required but final volumes will be determined during the detailed design stage of the project. Generally, it is anticipated that the major areas of earthworks will be the northern end of Redoubt Road and around Mill Road. There will also be earthmoving associated with the stormwater ponds. Bulk earthworks and construction activities will be staged and sequenced in order to limit the area of exposed soil, and open earthworks areas will be progressively stabilised by the placement of topsoil, grass seed, mulch and the use of hard fill material to reduce the potential for erosion to occur. The gradient of fill batter slopes will be designed to integrate banks and slopes with surrounding areas as far as practicable but will ultimately be guided by engineering requirements. These areas will be reviewed as part of the OPW referred to in 8 above. Physical earthworks will be managed through a Construction Environment Management Plan and associated Work Delivery Plan (which will be required to be



9

submitted as part of the OPW) and may include suitable conditions applied to the NOR. The NoR conditions also require that they Urban Design and Landscape DWP includes measures for the integration of cut and fill with existing topographical features (condition 28.1(e)).

10. Commentary in LVA re natural character effects (SEA, Murphys Bush etc). The assessment of landscape character effects in the LVA are combined as part of the assessment of effects of each project character area. A separate assessment of natural character was made for each character area and summarised in section 7.3.6 of the report. The assessment methodology is described in section 3.4. A description of the existing landscape character is provided in the Urban Design and Landscape Study and summarised in the LVA. Natural character is also discussed in section 6 of the LVA (Key Matters), which includes Murphys Bush and makes reference to the assessment of ecological effects by Boffa Miskell - where a thorough description of the ecology and SEAs along the route can be found. Natural character effects are managed through both the Urban Design and Landscape DWP and the Ecological Management and Restoration DWP.

11. Commentary in LVA re Construction Effects. It is acknowledged that there will be potential visual amenity effects arising from the construction works but it is considered that an assessment of such effects is not useful at this stage of the project before there is adequate detail to assess potential effects. The Guide to Lodgement Documentation includes an overview of the measures to be contained in the Construction Environment Management Plan and Delivery Work Plans, including urban design and landscape plans (see conditions 16 and 27).

12. Clarification in LVA that the assessment has not considered alternative options. The LVA did not consider alternative options with regard to road alignment (excepting an alternative “Stage 4” alignment of part of Mill Road in the vicinity of the Watercare and Cheeseman areas of bush – refer to ecological assessment). However, alternative alignments were investigated by a landscape architect and urban designer as part of the Scheme Assessment phase of the project. The LVA considered various landscape treatment options/alternatives as part of the general design process. Alternative sites, routes and methods that have been considered as part of the AEE are detailed in Section 9 of the AEE and the Scheme Assessment report in Appendix A of the AEE.

13. Commentary in LVA re Sensitive Ridgeline Overlay (and that this of no particular

relevance). The policies relating to the Sensitive Ridgeline Overlay are covered in the LVA and a full assessment against the criteria is included. It is noted that the overlay covers a very broad area and is not confined to ridgelines. In addition the ridgeline overlay applies only to new buildings and not a new road. The assessment states that the proposal will not adversely affect the rural and open space character of the surrounding area to any great extent (not that it is of no relevance). While Redoubt Road follows a ridgeline, Mill Road does not although it is within the overlay area. With regards to effects within the area, the assessment also notes the following:

No heritage sites are affected. No buildings are proposed. Light poles are the only structures that will be

visible on the skyline and these are slim structures, commonly viewed in the environment.



10

Existing bush and vegetation is retained as far as practicable and the road has been carefully planned and designed to avoid vegetation as far as possible. A range of new planting is proposed.

The project involves major earthworks in some locations. However existing landscape character is protected and earthworks will be planted or grassed to fit with the local character.

Reinstatement of driveways and local access will be required. Design will include retaining walls where appropriate to minimise land disturbance. Elsewhere planting is used to for integration and mitigation.

Additional comments are: There will be localised effects in some areas, and there will be some change

to areas sensitive to modification (limited to Character Area 4), but overall the proposal will not detract from high quality landscapes and there are no Outstanding Natural Landscapes or Features within the corridor.

The greatest visual impacts are associated with changes arising from removal of buildings/dwellings and realigned/new roading where the road will result in views of infrastructure and traffic for residents. This particularly applies in Character Areas 1 and 4.

New roading avoids ridgelines and the proposal is generally sympathetic to and compatible with the surrounding landscape qualities and characteristics.

Sally Peake Registered FNZILA Landscape Architect

attachment 8 landscape - auckland council · redoubt road/mill road 26.02.15 peake design ltd 5...

Documents