Further information response appendix 7

APPENDIX SEVEN
Clinton Bird Urban Design Limited Response
Note:
The panoramas in Figures 14 - 30 (see attached Appendix) should be spread across
two A3 sheets in order to give a reasonable sized image with a comfortable reading
distance.
Clinton Bird Urban Design Limited
BArch(Hons) (Auckland) DipUD(Dist) MA (Oxford Brookes)
P O Box 37 231, Parnell, Auckland 1151, New Zealand
Tel: +64 9 307 3735
Fax: +64 9 307 6985
Mobile: +64 21 307 374
Email: [email protected]
18 July 2014
Dr Phil Mitchell
Mitchell Partnerships Ltd
P O Box 33 1642
Takapuna
Auckland
Dear Phil
Ryman Greenlane – Urban Design issues.
This letter documents my responses to:
i.
Section 9: Urban Design / Landscape/Visual Assessment of the
Section 92 Request from Council’s consultant Planner, Mr Brooke
Dales, dated 25 June, 2014;
ii.
Appendix 1 attached to the Section 92 request which outlined queries
from Council’s Urban Designer and Council’s Consultant Landscape
Architect; and
iii.
The issues raised by the Council’s Urban Designer at a meeting
between the applicant’s team and Council Officers/Consultants on
Tuesday, 8 July, 2014.
Section 92 Request: Section 9: Please refer to response to Appendix 1 Point 9
below.
Appendix 1 attached to the Section 92 Request:
Point 7: Rationale for location of balconies. For example, cantilevered balconies on
northern elevation do not appear to relate to floor plans i.e. why balconies for some
units but not others?
With the exception of the Level 4 Floor Plan (Drawing Number A1-050 RC30
Revision B) all of the cantilevered balconies shown on the Levels 1-3 and Levels 5-6
floor plans (Revision B) respectively on Drawings A1-020 RC27, A1-030 RC28, A1040 RC29, A1-060 RC 31 and A1-070 RC 32 are illustrated on the corresponding
Northwest and Northeast elevations illustrated on Drawing A2-010 RC 08 (Revision
B).
From the comments under Point 7 above, it appears that the Council’s Urban
Designer may not understand the generally accepted architectural representation
convention for drawing floor plans. This convention is based upon cutting a horizontal
cross-section through each level of the building at a height of 1m above floor level
and depicting all that would be visible looking downwards below that horizontal
cross-section. Once this convention is understood, reference to Ryman’s drawings
will confirm that:
i.
All four of the Assisted Living Suites (ASL’s) on Level 1 have ground
level patios (see Drawing Number A1-020 RC 27);
ii.
There are no balconies off the Level 2 Care Bed rooms. What might
appear to be balconies accessible from these rooms are in fact the
patios accessible from the ground level (Level 1) ASL’s below (see
Drawing Number A1-030 RC 28);
iii.
All four Care Suites on Level 3 have balconies (see Drawing Number
A1-040 RC 29);
iv.
There is a mistake on the Level 4 plan (see Drawing Number A1-050
RC30). This shows a total of four balconies off the Care Bed rooms,
when in fact there should only be two (one wrapping around the
northern corner of the building and one in the slightly recessed area at
the southern end of that same wing). This drawing has been corrected
and re-titled A1-050 RC 30 Revision C (see Figure 1 in the Appendix
attached to this document).
v.
All ALS’s on Level 5 have balconies (see Drawing Number A1-060 RC
31); and
vi.
Both apartments on Level 6 have balconies (see Drawing Number A1070 RC 32).
Because the degree of resident mobility progressively decreases from ‘Apartments’,
down through ‘Assisted Living Suites’, to the ‘Care Bed’ rooms, the usefulness of
balconies associated with each of these accommodation types decreases, to the
point where residents in Care Bed facilities are very unlikely to use the balconies at
all. For this reason, balconies are not provided for Care Bed facilities and that is why
there are no balconies on Levels 2 and 4 (except for those that wrap around the
northern corner of the building to architecturally celebrate and reinforce the turning of
the corner, in plan, and to create a varied building corner profile in elevation).
There is also a difference in the depth of the balconies. All but the two in the centre
of the Level 5 plan and corresponding building elevation are 600mm deep. On Level
5 the central pair of balconies have been designed as ‘Juliet’ balconies, which
comprise a balustrade across the outside of a set of four doors, the middle two of
which slide open. This ensures that the balconies maintain the ‘recessed’ band of
the fifth floor level rooms tucked under the wide soffit. It also ensures that the ‘Juliet’
balconies do not project beyond the face of the creamy coloured brick wall below,
which is in a different plane to that of the recessed Level 5 wall above.
By relating the placement of balconies on elevations to the room types behind and
the likelihood of their being used, and by reducing the depth and type of those on the
upper-most Level 5 band of recessed wall, balconies have been very effectively used
to accurately express the building floor plans and their various room functions, and to
break up and add visual interest to what could otherwise be relatively blank facades.
2 Point 8: Clarification of internal finished floor levels in relation to finished ground
plane i.e. clarify where internal floor levels are below external ground level:
Please refer to the Cross Sections A, B, C, D and E (Drawing Numbers A3-010
RC10 Revision B and A3-020 RC11 Revision B). These all show RL’s relative to
existing and proposed ground levels. They also confirm that there are no habitable
rooms below the proposed finished ground levels.
Point 9a: Photomontage of proposed scheme from midway point on Campbell Road
north i.e. approximately opposite Massey Place (Avenue):
On Tuesday 15 July, 2014, together with Mr Brad Coombs of the Isthmus Group, I
visited the site surroundings. I took the opportunity to view the site from the location
suggested by Council’s Urban Designer, i.e. opposite Massey Avenue.
In my opinion, this viewpoint offers little in the way of helping to convey the
impression of the visual effects of the Proposal in its Campbell Road context, for the
following reasons:
i)
The viewpoint is only one very short suburban block to the
south-west of the intersection of Campbell Road and Fergusson
Place, which is the viewpoint upon which Photomontage
Number 1 was prepared; and
ii)
The viewpoint from the intersection of Campbell Road and
Massey Avenue is in a dip in Campbell Road whereas that from
the intersection of Campbell Road and Fergusson Place (and
from which Photomontage 1 was prepared) is on the crest of a
rise in Campbell Road and affords a more elevated and
expansive view of the Proposal in its streetscape context.
For a comparison of the two viewpoints please refer to Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the
Appendix attached to this document. Figure 2 illustrates the originally selected view
from opposite the intersection of Campbell Road and Ferguson Avenue, Figure 3 is
taken from the footpath on the northern side of Campbell Road opposite Massey
Avenue and Figure 4 from the centre of the west-bound carriageway alongside the
intersection of Campbell Road and Massey Avenue.
Point 9b Identification of public locations in the wider area, including Cornwall Park
(and photomontages where appropriate) from where the proposed scheme will be
visible i.e. beyond the immediate neighbourhood:
On 15 July, 2014, I also explored streets in the wider area, beyond the immediate
neighbourhood, to the east and south of the site and from public footpaths traversing
the lower slopes of Cornwall Park to the north-west of the site.
When exploring the wider areas to the east and south of the site it became obvious
that the topography of these areas very soon slopes off quite steeply to the southeast of the site towards the flatlands of the Penrose residential and industrial areas
(see Figure 8 attached to this document). For this reason it is very difficult to see the
existing buildings (or those of the Proposal) site against the back drop of
Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill) from this area of the wider neighbourhood. I could find
only two locations from where it was just possible to see very limited and extremely
fleeting glimpses of the existing buildings but, in my opinion, neither of these
viewpoints were of any urban design or visual landscape relevance to an
3 assessment of environmental effects of the Proposal on its wider neighbourhood.
The first of these locations was from outside number 21B William Avenue and the
second was from outside number 74 Te Kawa Road (see Figures 5, 6 and 7 in the
Appendix attached to this document).
Further to the west of the site views of the site, the contours are more gentle so that
any views of the site and/or its Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill) backdrop are obscured
by the typically one and/or two storey houses and mature trees lining the relatively
narrow streets in the area.
Point 17: Explanation to support “Note how the form, scale and dimensions of the
roof forms near the boundaries of the site have been indexed to those of the
neighbouring properties:
This statement was intended to explain how the roof forms on the buildings bordering
the edges of the site, in particular, have been designed to approximate the typically
hipped forms, scale, slope and dimensions of the roofs typically found on the
neighbouring residential buildings (see Figure 8 in the Appendix attached to this
document). The yellow lines indicate how the gutter/eaves lines of the Proposal near
the edges of the site approximate the dimensions of the neighbouring houses, while
the blue lines illustrate similar ridge-line dimensions on the Proposal and the
residential buildings on neighbouring properties.
Point 18: Clarify conflict of statements in Appendix 1 and others regarding removal
of trees i.e. Section 5.12 of Appendix 1 states “All trees outside the footprints of the
two (three) new buildings will be retained.”
This statement was based upon a misunderstanding of Ryman’s intentions. It is
acknowledged that it is not correct and that it is proposed to remove some trees from
the group along the Campbell Road frontage of the site (refer Drawing Number RC
07a). Reference should also be made to the Arboricultural Report for 187 Campbell
Road, Greenlane, prepared for Ryman Healthcare Limited by Mr Andrew Barrell,
Consultant Arborist, and dated 16 July 2014. The purpose of this report is to address
the matters raised by the Auckland Council’s consulting arborist.
Point 19: Information to support statements made in Sections 6.1 and 6.3 of
Appendix 1, including: “…will sit well in its Campbell Road streetscape…” (no
analysis of the streetscape has been provided) and “…its architectural expression in
the three-dimensional built form will enhance views of the site…”
There has been an analysis of the Campbell Road streetscape, although not under
that exact heading (refer paragraphs 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.2(xi), 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9
and 6.55, and Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and
90).
It is considered that the Proposal “will sit well in its Campbell Road streetscape”
because:
i.
The Proposal will retain the majority of the group of mature
trees characterising and providing along the existing Campbell
road frontage of the site;
ii.
The well-established Campbell Road ‘landmark’ provided by the
substantial group of mature trees will be retained;
4 iii.
Combined with the substantial and mature existing vegetation
on the immediately opposite side of Campbell Road, the trees
to be retained on the frontage of the site will help to ensure that
the highly vegetated character on both sides of this part of
Campbell Road will be retained; and
iv.
The Proposal will be generally well screened from Campbell
Road;
v.
The set back of Buildings B01 and B03 from the Campbell
Road boundary of the site will help to ensure that high levels of
on site residential amenity will be achieved despite the heavily
trafficked, arterial corridor nature of Campbell Road;
vi.
Although there will be a visually permeable fence along the
Campbell Road frontage of the site, there will be no need to
have the high, privacy walls for north-west facing private
outdoor living areas that might be necessary if the site were to
be developed for more traditional/conventional types of
residential subdivision such as terraced houses or apartments
with ground floor living areas addressing the street frontage;
vii.
Given that not that many pedestrians walk along Campbell
Road, given the volume of vehicular traffic, and given that there
are no traffic lights in the vicinity of the site, the majority of
passers-by are likely to be motorists travelling at such a speed
that they will be afforded only fleeting glimpses of the site
through the trees, so any differences between the bulk and
location of the Proposal relative to the existing building, are
likely to be barely noticeable; and
viii.
The scale of Campbell Road, together with the ease of level
access from the site to the outstanding recreational resource of
Cornwall Park almost directly opposite the site, makes sites
fronting on to this road ideally suited to contributing to and
achieving the Auckland Unitary Plan’s key objective of
increasing the level of residential intensification within the ruralurban boundary (RUB).
It is considered that the Proposal’s “architectural expression in three-dimensional
built form will enhance views of the site” because:
i.
It will replace the derelict and vandalized eye-sore of the
former Logan Park Hotel with an attractive new healthcare
retirement village;
ii.
Overall, there will be much more architectural modulation to
the bulk and mass of the Proposal, and variation in its roofline
silhouette against the sky, than is currently provided by the
former Logan Park Hotel;
iii.
The bulk and mass of the Proposal is much more varied than
the existing former Logan Park Hotel and, especially around
the edges of the site, it is much more responsive to the height
5 and scale of the dwellings on the immediately adjoining
residential properties; and
iv.
The Proposal deploys more traditional residential/domestic
cladding materials than does the existing Logan Park Hotel.
Point 21: Analysis that has informed the landscape and architectural character of the
proposed scheme:
Mr Brad Coombs, of the Isthmus Group, has addressed the analysis that has
informed the landscape character of the proposed scheme.
The urban design analysis underlying the Proposal included an extensive site,
directly adjoining property, streetscape and wider neighbourhood context survey,
referring to the District Plan controls for the site, reviewing the existing ‘live’ resource
consent for the site, and taking account of Ryman’s accommodation, functional and
operational healthcare requirements. This analysis gave rise to the seven key urban
design objectives listed in paragraph 6.4 of the Urban Design Review report of 2 May
2014. To achieve these objectives, it was necessary to consider issues of
overlooking, privacy, visual dominance, shading, existing and proposed vegetation,
building form, massing, materials and colours, positively shaped outdoor spaces
between buildings, and minimizing vehicle movement and associated hard surfaced
driveways on the site.
Point 22: Analysis to support statements such as “the relatively narrow projecting
‘wing’ (on the left) generated by B01 plan footprint and the colour variation in the
brick cladding reduce the potential bulk of the building and ensure that it exhibits a
residential scale” – to clarify how figure 117 (b - Ryman proposal) shows the use of
the building footprint and cladding colour to achieve residential scale.
The “relatively narrow projecting ‘wing’ (on the left)” of Figure 117 (b – Ryman
proposal) is only one small Assisted Living Suite (ASL) and/or one small Care Bed
room wide and is, therefore, narrower or at least no wider than the longest floor plan
footprint dimension of most of the detached houses in the surrounding
neighbourhood. In my opinion, this narrowness and similar dimensional relationship
with the external walls of adjoining residential dwellings is a key ingredient in helping
to reduce the potential visual bulk of the building and helping to ensure that it exhibits
a residential scale.
The colour variation in the brick cladding visually divides the elevation into two
components - one four storeys in height (of which the lower two are largely obscured
by the existing vegetation which is to be retained) and the upper (fifth) level which is
differentiated not only by building material colours but also by a slight set back from
the plane of the external walls to the levels below and differences in the design and
depth of the fifth level balconies. The visibly differentiated upper, single (fifth) level
together with the two visible (third and fourth) levels below, create the sense of a two
plus one storey building, either component of which is not at all out of scale or
character with residential buildings in the neighbourhood.
6 Issues raised by the Council’s Urban Designer at a meeting between the
applicant’s team and Council Officers/Consultants on Tuesday, 8 July, 2014.
Photomontages
Council’s Urban Designer expressed some concerns about the visual effect of the
Proposal when viewed from four particular viewpoints (out of a total of 13) for which
photomontages had been prepared and included in the Urban Design Review report
of 2 May 2014. The viewpoints of concern were View 1 from the intersection of
Campbell Road and Ferguson Avenue (see Figures 115 and 116 of the Urban
Design report), View 2 from the intersection of Campbell Road and St Oswalds Road
(see Figures 117 and 118 of the Urban Design Report), View 3 from outside number
148 Campbell Road (see Figures 119 and 120 of the Urban Design report), and View
9 from outside number 9 Korokino Road (see Figures 131 and 132 of the Urban
Design Report).
These viewpoints were originally selected to show as genuinely as possible, as
clearly as possible, and with as little foreground screening as possible, how the
Proposal would appear within its wider and local Greenlane contexts. Under these
circumstances it must be remembered that such highly selected close-up views are
typically only experienced as a short moment in time – particularly when the viewer is
a motorist travelling at 50 km per hour, as would typically be the case with the
Campbell Road views.
The photographs from which the original photomontages were prepared were taken
using a digital SLR camera with a 35mm lens. This lens, although equivalent to the
non-digital 50mm focal length of the human eye, does not take account of the
typically wider view (both horizontally and vertically) actually experienced in the field
and therefore has a tendency to place too great an emphasis on the building as the
focal point of the photograph. In other words, the Proposal takes up too much of the
view and the wider context actually perceived by the human eye is excluded.
For this reason, and in response to the Section 92 Request, it has been decided to
adopt the ‘Best Practice Guide: Visual Simulations BPG 10.2’ produced by the New
Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA). The guide states that generally,
panorama views should not exceed the 124 degree horizontal primary human field of
view or the 55 degree vertical primary human field of view. The procedures
recommended by this guide have been accepted in the Environment Court. The
photographs depicted in Figures 14-30 have a 110 degree horizontal primary field of
view. The viewpoints from which each photograph has been taken and/or from which
each photomontage has been produced are illustrated in Figure 9 in the Appendix
attached to this document.
Viewpoint 1: From Campbell Road opposite its intersection with Ferguson
Avenue
During my visit to the site’s wider surroundings on Tuesday 15 July 2014, I took the
opportunity to re-consider the exact location of the viewpoint upon which the original
Photomontage Number 1 was produced. The viewpoint was originally chosen to
provide the best possible view of the building and to not have it obscured by trees,
power and street light poles, parked cars, etc. but this necessitated standing on the
roadside kerb facing the on-coming traffic (see Figure 10 in the Appendix attached to
this document). On reflection, this is not a location from which many people could be
expected to view the Proposal in its Campbell Road context.
7 I therefore decided that the most realistic and typical views of the Proposal from this
part of Campbell Road would be experienced by pedestrians from the footpaths on
each side of the carriageway and, much more momentarily and fleetingly, by
motorists using the west-bound carriageway (see Figures 11, 12 and 13 in the
Appendix attached to this document). These photographs confirm that:
i.
From the footpath on the northern side of Campbell Road, the site is
seen in the context of a much more cluttered foreground, which
competes with and distracts from the view of the Proposal on the
skyline (see Figure 11 in the Appendix attached to this document);
ii.
From the footpath on the southern side of Campbell Road, the site is
barely visible (see Figure 12 in the Appendix attached to this
document);
iii.
From the west-bound carriageway, only approximately the front half of
the site is visible and that is seen very fleetingly in the context of a
wider streetscape panorama, the traffic and a very axially emphatic
view along the considerably straight length of Campbell Road (see
Figure 13 in the Appendix attached to this document).
For all of these reasons, new photomontages of the proposal, based upon the NZILA
BPG 10.2, have been prepared from the footpath on the northern side of Campbell
Road, opposite its intersection with Ferguson Avenue, to replace the photomontages
from Viewpoint 1 that were originally included in the Urban Design Report.
The new photomontages prepared from Viewpoint 1 illustrate how the Ryman
Proposal is no more dominant within the overall street scene than is, for example, the
cream plastered and terracotta coloured tiled roof house on the corner of Campbell
Road and Ferguson Avenue or the trees in the foreground. The skyline silhouette of
the Proposal is broken into two separate components by the gap between Buildings
B01 and B02, making it appear less bulky and therefore less visually dominant within
the overall street scene than the consented scheme (see Figures 14, 15 and 16 in
the Appendix attached to this document).
Viewpoint 2: from Campbell Road, opposite its intersection with St Oswalds
Road
The new photomontages prepared from Viewpoint 2, based upon the NZILA Visual
Simulations BPG 10.2, illustrate how the Ryman Proposal is entirely in scale with the
height of the trees already existing on the site and in the grounds of St Oswalds
Church to the left of the image. Because Building B01 is closer to the Campbell Road
boundary of the site than the existing Logan Park Hotel, it appears to be a little taller
than the consented scheme. Nevertheless, the building sits comfortably alongside St
Oswalds Church and is of an appropriate scale and height given the generous width
and scale of Campbell Road as a heavily trafficked thoroughfare (see Figures 17, 18
and 19 in the Appendix attached to this document).
Viewpoint 3: From outside number 148 Campbell Road
The new photomontages prepared from Viewpoint 3, based upon the NZILA BPG
10.2, illustrate how this view very much represents a fleeting, momentary glimpse for
the majority of passers-by who are motorists. The Ryman Proposal forms only a
relatively small component of the visual edge of the southern side of the street and
any actual and/or potential adverse effects arising from the longer than may be
8 typical straight roofline silhouette against the sky is considered to be no more than
minor (see Figures 20, 21 and 22 in the Appendix attached to this document).
Viewpoint 9: From outside number 9 Korokino Road
The new photomontages prepared from Viewpoint 9, based upon the NZILA BPG
10.2, illustrate how the two large street trees frame and almost dwarf the bulk, mass
and height of the Ryman Proposal. The length of the Building B01 roofline silhouette
against the sky sits comfortably within the overall street scene (see Figures 23, 24
and 25 in the Appendix attached to this document).
Viewpoint 14: From a public pathway on the lower slopes of Cornwall Park
The new photomontages prepared from Viewpoint 14, based upon the NZILA BPG
10.2, illustrate how the Proposal is no more visually prominent within the overall
scene than either the existing Hotel or the consented scheme. The Proposal is so far
away and so dwarfed by the height of the Cornwall Park trees that is pales into
relative insignificance within the overall scene. It does not detract from the pleasant
‘natural’ ambience of the park (see Figures 26, 27 and 28 in the Appendix attached
to this document).
Viewpoints 15 and 16: From public pathways on the lower slopes of Cornwall
Park
Panoramic photographs were taken from Viewpoints 15 and 16 to illustrate views of
the existing Logan Park Hotel from within the park. These photographs are based
upon the NZIA BPG 10.2. However, the photographs from these viewpoints were
considered to be neither sufficiently significant nor sufficiently different to the views
from Viewpoint 14 to warrant the production of photomontages of the Ryman
Proposal (see Figures 29 and 30 in the Appendix attached to this document).
Council Urban Designer’s sketches of possible changes to the massing of the
Proposal
At the meeting on 8 July 2014, The Council Urban Designer presented a drawing
entitled ‘Massing Plan - 187 Campbell Road’, together with two ‘views (one from the
north and another from the north-west) from a sketch-up model to illustrate idea of
changing massing plan proposed’.
These drawings were over-written with the words ‘idea only – idea only – idea only idea only’. They proposed removing rooms from parts of the building to reduce the
heights of parts of the buildings and to further modulate the building masses.
These drawings have been reviewed and their implications seriously considered.
However, and with respect, they are not considered practical or achievable because
they would involve the loss of a substantial number of care beds and assisted living
suites that are critical to the ‘continuum of healthcare’ that Ryman seeks to provide to
its residents. These rooms cannot be relocated elsewhere within Building B01, which
is where they have to be accommodated for functional and managerial purposes.
The Council Urban Designer’s suggestions regarding changes to the massing of the
Proposal also fail to take account of the location of the stairwells, many of which are
located in the very parts of the building the Urban Designer suggests could be
removed. This would mean that not only would some parts of the remaining upper
floor levels would be inaccessible, but also the building would not comply with the fire
9 regulations, which specify maximum permitted distances between rooms and fire
escape stairs. For these reason the suggestions are not considered practicable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that the new photographs, based upon the NZILA’s
Visual Simulations Best Practice Guide 10.2, provide further confirmation that the
Proposal’s massing, architectural character and cladding materials are all responsive
to the characteristics of the site, its immediately surrounding residential properties,
the Campbell Road streetscape and its wider Greenlane context.
Clinton Bird
18 July 2014
10 APPENDIX
Figures referred to in the text of this document.
11 Figure 1: The revised Level 4 Floor Plan (Drawing Number A1-050 RC 30 Revision C)
12 Figure 2: Viewpoint 1 originally included in the Urban Design Report (from the kerb line opposite the intersection of Campbell Road and Ferguson
Avenue).
13 Figure 3: The additional viewpoint location for a pedestrian using the footpath opposite the intersection of Campbell Road and Massey Avenue, as
recommended by the Council Urban Designer. Note how, because of the dip in the landform at this location, relatively little of the site and the
existing building is visible when compared with Figure 2.
14 Figure 4: The additional viewpoint location for a motorist passing the intersection of Campbell Road and Massey Avenue, as recommended by the
Council Urban Designer. Note how neither the existing building nor the site is visible.
15 Figure 5: An Auckland Council GIS Viewer image of the steep contours to the east and south of the site together with those of Maungakiekie (One
Tree Hill) to the west of the site. The views from 21 B William Avenue and from 74 Te Kawa Road are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7 respectively.
16 Figure 6: A very small glimpse of Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill) (above the terracotta coloured tile roof) from outside 21B William Avenue.
17 Figure 7: A very small glimpse of the existing Logan Park Hotel (to the right of the power pole) from outside 74 Te Kawa Road.
18 Figure 8: An aerial photograph of the site and its immediate surroundings, illustrating how the various lengths of the Proposal’s hip roofed eaves
lines (in yellow) and ridge lines (in blue) approximate the dimensions of the roof eaves lines and ridgelines on the neighbouring dwellings.
19 Figure 9: An aerial photograph of the site and its context, illustrating the locations of the viewpoints from which photographs were taken and from
which photomontages have been produced.
20 Figure 10: Viewpoint 1 originally included in the Urban Design Report (from the Campbell Road kerb line, facing on-coming traffic).
21 Figure 11: The more realistic and appropriate Viewpoint 1 for pedestrians - from the footpath on the northern side of Campbell Road. Note how this
view has a much more cluttered foreground than the view depicted in Figure 9, and how this clutter detracts from the visual significance/presence
of the existing Logan Park Hotel on the skyline.
22 Figure 12: The more realistic and appropriate Viewpoint 1 for pedestrians - from the footpath on the southern side of Campbell Road. Note how the
site is barely visible.
23 Figure 13: The more realistic and appropriate Viewpoint 1 for motorists travelling west along Campbell Road. Note how approximately only the
front half of the site is visible and even then it is only a fleeting, momentary glimpse for a motorist, with the very strong axiality of the long,
straight length of Campbell Road ahead that dominates the visual scene.
24 Figure 14: Viewpoint 1 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
25 Figure 15: Viewpoint 1 – Consented scheme.
26 Figure 16: Viewpoint 1 – Ryman Proposal.
27 Figure 17: Viewpoint 2 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
28 Figure 18: Viewpoint 2 – Consented scheme.
29 Figure 19: Viewpoint 2 – Ryman Proposal.
30 Figure 20: Viewpoint 3 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
31 Figure 21: Viewpoint 3 – Consented scheme.
32 Figure 22: Viewpoint 3 – Ryman Proposal.
33 Figure 23: Viewpoint 9 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
34 Figure 24: Viewpoint 9 – Consented scheme.
35 Figure 25: Viewpoint 9 – Ryman Proposal.
36 Figure 26: Viewpoint 14 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
37 Figure 27: Viewpoint 14 – Consented scheme.
38 Figure 28: Viewpoint 14 – Ryman Proposal.
39 Figure 29: Viewpoint 15 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
40 Figure 30: Viewpoint 16 – Existing Logan Park Hotel.
41

Download Report