31654827:637695

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND IN THE MATTER of a direct referral application under section 87G

of the RMA for resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America’s Cup in Auckland

BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND

LIMITED

(ENV-2018-AKL-000078) Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory Authority

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF REBECCA SKIDMORE ON BEHALF OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL

(URBAN DESIGN)

Dated 21 August 2018

BROOKFIELDS LAWYERS M C Allan Telephone No. 09 979 2128 Fax No. 09 379 3224 P O Box 240 DX CP24134 AUCKLAND

1594

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My full name is Rebecca Anne Skidmore.

1.2 My evidence is given on behalf of the Auckland Council (Council) in its regulatory

capacity in relation to the direct referral application filed by Panuku Development

Auckland Limited (Applicant) seeking resource consents for the construction,

occupation, use and maintenance of permanent and temporary infrastructure and

undertaking of activities within the coastal marine area and on land, associated with

the America’s Cup (the Application). My evidence relates to the urban design

aspects of the Application.

2. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

2.1 I am an Urban Designer and Landscape Architect. I have the following academic

qualifications:

• Bachelor of Science degree from Canterbury University, Christchurch

(1987);

• Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (Hons.) degree from Lincoln University,

Christchurch (1990); and

• Master of Built Environment (Urban Design) degree from Queensland

University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia (1995).

2.2 I am a director of the consultancy R. A. Skidmore Urban Design Limited and have

held this position for approximately fifteen years.

2.3 I have approximately 22 years’ experience in practice in both local government and

the private sector. In these positions I have assisted with district plan preparation

and I have reviewed a wide range of resource consent applications throughout the

country. These assessments relate to a range of rural, residential and commercial

proposals of differing scales.

2.4 I regularly assist local authorities with policy and district plan development in relation

to growth management, urban design, landscape, and amenity matters, and

provision of housing within identified special housing areas. I also have considerable

experience in carrying out character assessments.

2.5 I am an independent hearings commissioner and I have provided expert evidence in

the Environment Court on numerous occasions.

1595

3

2.6 R. A. Skidmore Urban Design Ltd. is a founding signatory to the New Zealand Urban

Design Protocol.

3. MY ROLE

3.1 I provided the Council with a report on the urban design aspects of the Application

(Report). My Report was entitled ‘America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Urban Design

Peer Review Comments’ and was attached as Appendix F to the Council’s section

87F Report by Nicola Broadbent1. I reaffirm the contents and conclusions of my

Report, subject to the matters noted below.

3.2 I have visited the ‘Site’ and surrounding environs on numerous occasions in

reviewing this proposal and earlier iterations.

3.3 I participated in expert witness conferencing with the urban design and landscape

witnesses (Ian Munro, Nick Rae, Graeme McIndoe, John Goodwin, and Peter

Kensington), and was a signatory to a Joint Witness Statement (JWS) of urban

design experts dated 7th August 20182.

3.4 In preparing my Report and this evidence I have reviewed the following documents

and reports:

(a) The Assessment of Environmental Effects by UNIO dated 13 April 20183;

(b) The proposed consent conditions4;

(c) The Architectural Design Statement by Moller Architects dated 12 April 20185;

(d) The Urban Design report by McIndoeUrban dated 12 April 20186;

(e) The Building and Public Space Design Guidelines dated 10 April 20187;

(f) The Legacy report8;

1 CB141, page 3677 onwards. 2 E29, page 1388 onwards. 3 CB4, page 0081 onwards. 4 CB8, page 0541 onwards. 5 CB11, page 0707 onwards. 6 CB13, page 0796. 7 CB14, page 0873 onwards. 8 CB35, page 2270 onwards.

1596

4

(g) Various drawing sets (urban design assessment figures9, LVA plans and visual

simulations10, architectural drawing set11, concept engineering drawings DS1 to

DS512);

(h) The statements of evidence of:

i. Russell Green (Emirates Team New Zealand)13;

ii. Craig Jones (Event Legacy)14;

iii. John Goodwin (Natural Character, Land scape and Visual Amenity)15;

iv. Graeme McIndoe (Urban Design)16; and

v. Karl Cook and Vijay Lala (Planning), including Attachment A: Proposed

Conditions of Consent (Proposed Conditions)17.

4. CODE OF CONDUCT

4.1 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Code) outlined in the

Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note 2014 and have complied with it in

preparing this evidence. I also agree to follow the Code when presenting evidence

to the Court. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within

my area of expertise, eexcept where I state that I rely upon the evidence of other

expert witnesses. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts

known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions.

5. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

5.1 This statement of evidence covers the following:

(a) A summary of my evidence (Executive Summary);

(b) A summary of my assessment of the Application, including an overview of

the key points from my Report (Assessment of the Application);

9 CB41, page 2336 onwards. 10 CB42, page 2363 onwards. 11 CB44, page 2463 onwards. 12 CB45, page 2510 onwards. 13 E3, page 0045 onwards. 14 E8, page 0255 onwards. 15 E6, page 0128 onwards. 16 E7, page 0195 onwards. 17 E19, page 1060 onwards.

1597

5

(c) An update following expert witness conferencing, referring to the JWS where

appropriate, and a response to issues raised in the Applicant’s evidence

(Update Following Expert Witness Conferencing / Response to

Applicant’s Evidence);

(d) Comments on draft conditions and proposed mitigation (Conditions /

Mitigation); and

(e) Conclusions.

6. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6.1 In my opinion, hosting the America’s Cup will bring considerable benefit to the

continued evolution of the Auckland waterfront. In my opinion, the base

configuration proposed will make a positive contribution to the vitality and character

of the wider area and the creation of an integrated village atmosphere.

6.2 Following the consent period, I consider that the proposal will provide a number of

positive legacies, including the upgrading of Wynyard Wharf and the adjacent land

and the creation of additional opportunities to access the water’s edge from wharves

and breakwaters. Having read the evidence of Craig Jones, I now agree that the

proposed Hobson Wharf extension will be suitable for a range of destination

activities and therefore will provide a positive legacy.

6.3 I am a signatory to the urban design and landscape architecture joint witness

statement and support the attached Design Requirements document as a suitable

framework for ensuring the design of bases and the public realm upgrades achieve

amenity outcomes that are suitable for their context. I agree that additional wording

could be included as an explanatory note to highlight the differing contexts of Base

B and Bases C-G. However, I do not consider the other amendments suggested by

Mr McIndoe are necessary to provide suitable flexibility for differing base formats

and constructions.

6.4 My Report recommended a number of conditions to ensure public access to the

coastal edge is maintained. The intent of the recommendations have largely been

adopted in the suite of Proposed Conditions attached to the evidence of Karl Cook

and Vijay Lala. However, I also recommended that reinstatement of public access

should be provided along the eastern edge of Wynyard Point (the Brigham Street

alignment). In my opinion, a condition requiring this access should be included.

1598

6

7. ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION

7.1 While my review relied on information contained in a range of application documents

(as outlined at paragraph 3.4 above), it was focussed on the Urban Design report

by McIndoeUrban (12/04/18, Document 12). My Report:

(a) provided a summary of the site description/receiving environment18;

(b) commented on the adequacy of information provided with the Application19;

(c) provided a review of the analysis of effects, following the structure of the

McIndoeUrban report20;

(d) commented on urban design matters raised in submissions21; and

(e) recommended a number of amendments and additions to the consent

conditions to address potential adverse effects identified in the Report22.

7.2 In conclusion, my Report noted23 that over the past twenty years there has been a

transformation of Auckland’s waterfront. This began with the transformation of the

Viaduct Harbour area from an industrial area with limited public access or

engagement with the coastal edge to a vibrant and high amenity mixed urban

environment. More recently this has continued through the Wynyard Precinct which

continues to develop and evolve. The urban transformation has been led by strong

urban design principles and an emphasis on creating a distinctive and high quality

public realm reinforced by the private realm development.

7.3 Overall, I concluded24 that hosting the America’s Cup will bring considerable benefit

to the continued evolution of the waterfront. In my opinion, the base configuration

proposed will make a positive contribution to the vitality and character of the wider

area and the creation of an integrated village atmosphere.

7.4 I concluded that25, in event mode, the proposal will, overall, make a positive

contribution to the vitality, amenity and character of the area. However, there will

18 CB141, pages 3679 – 3681. 19 CB141, page 3681. 20 CB141, pages 3682 – 3689. 21 CB141, pages 3689 – 3692. 22 CB141, pages 3692 – 3683. 23 CB141, page 3693, paragraph 7.1. 24 Paragraph 7.2. 25 Paragraph 7.3.

1599

7

be a number of adverse amenity effects in relation to connectivity and displacement

of activities.

7.5 Following the consent period, I agreed that26 the proposal will provide a number of

positive legacies, including the upgrading of Wynyard Wharf and the adjacent land

and the creation of additional opportunities to access the water’s edge from wharves

and breakwaters. While the Hobson Wharf extension provides options for a number

of legacy uses, my Report considered it to be of limited benefit as part of the open

space network and concluded that it would not be suitable as an event space (I

discuss this matter further at paragraph 8.13 below, by reference to the evidence of

Craig Jones).

8. UPDATE FOLLOWING EXPERT WITNESS CONFERENCING / RESPONSE TO

APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

Design Control of Bases and Open Spaces

8.1 Since the completion of my review Report and through the mediation and expert

caucusing process there has been considerable change to the proposed method for

ensuring suitable design outcomes for the bases and the public realm.

8.2 In particular, in the suite of Proposed Conditions contained in Attachment A to the

evidence of Karl Cook and Vijay Lala, approval of the Moller plans is no longer

included in a condition (save that the Moller plans for the alterations to the Viaduct

Events Centre to enable its use as Base A by ETNZ are proposed to be consented

– see condition 13). Instead, the previous Building and Public Space Design

Guidelines (the “Design Guidelines”) (which were proposed to provide design

flexibility where a departure from the Moller plans was sought), have been re-written

as the Building, Yard and Public Open Space Design Requirements (the “Design

Requirements”) document. This document was agreed by the urban design and

landscape architecture expert witnesses (as outlined in the Joint Witness Statement,

dated 7th August 2018, and contained as Attachment 2 to that document). As

outlined in section 3 of the JWS27, the experts could not reach agreement on whether

it is appropriate to provide for additional design flexibility through the Design

Requirements document.

26 Paragraph 7.4. 27 E29, page 1390.

1600

8

8.3 I preface the following evidence by observing that I have not had the benefit of

seeing the section 274 parties’ evidence on the appropriateness of allowing further

design flexibility through the Design Requirements. Mr Kensington states in his

evidence (at paragraph 8.8) that he anticipates that further discussions among the

experts on this issue may be useful once the parties’ statements of evidence in chief

have been exchanged. I agree.

8.4 In terms of design considerations, there is rarely a single design solution that will

meet desired outcomes. The task of preparing a document that provided

prescriptive and clear parameters whilst enabling design innovation was

challenging. However, I consider the agreed document strikes an appropriate

balance between providing some clear quantitative parameters and requirements

around the design outcomes sought with flexibility around how these are to be

achieved.

8.5 The evidence of Russell Green on behalf of Panuku Development Auckland,

describes the differing circumstances and design aspirations of possible challenger

teams. He highlights the potential for later entries to seek to construct pre-fabricated

or tent/container base facilities28. In my opinion, the Design Requirements would

not preclude these typologies but would require design outcomes that are suitable

for the context and the creation of a high quality environment, particularly as it

interfaces with the public realm. In particular, I note that a prefabricated building

form or temporary structure could successfully be designed to meet the Overarching

Design Principles (1.1, 1.3 and 1.4). In my opinion, it is suitable for consideration to

be given to the configuration and design of structures, even if these are simple in

form and temporary in nature (such as marquees or containers) and the Generic

Building and Yard Design Requirements set out in Section 2 are suitable to apply. I

also consider the specific requirements set out for Bases C-G Wynyard Point are

appropriate and achievable for more temporary structures.

8.6 In his evidence, Graeme McIndoe recommends a number of changes to the Design

Requirements document to enable further design flexibility. Firstly, Mr McIndoe

seeks to more explicitly acknowledge the differing context of Base B and Bases C-

G. I agree that these are very different contexts, with the sensitivities of the Hobson

Wharf context requiring a more sophisticated design response for Base B than the

more industrial context of Wynyard Point which will accommodate Bases C-G. The

28 Paragraph 6.5, evidence of Russell Green, E3, page 0053.

1601

9

importance of responding to the site specific context is contained in the Overarching

Design Principle 1.1 which states:

Each base is to embody an overarching design idea or concept; relate

sensitively to its specific context, including other buildings and public

open spaces; and demonstrate design co-ordination and integration so as

to avoid outcomes being a piecemeal assemblage of unrelated design

responses. (emphasis added)

8.7 In my opinion, the additional principle suggested by Mr McIndoe29 provides more of

an explanation rather than providing a useful additional principle. Considerable

effort was made to ensure the principles were succinct and clear. I do not oppose

the additional wording suggested being included as an explanatory note rather than

an additional principle. However, I do consider it is particularly wordy.

8.8 Mr McIndoe also suggests some flexibility for consideration of areas and dimensions

included in the Design Requirements30. Of course, as drafted there is flexibility

within the parameters noted. Careful consideration was given to specifying outer

parameters that could be administered as part of a condition of consent in the

absence of specific proposals. I do not consider that additional flexibility is

necessary to accommodate the more temporary structures described as being

desirable by Mr Green. I note that the suggested amendments also extend to the

parameters determined for Base B, which has a greater sensitivity and requires a

more sophisticated design response.

8.9 While alternative design responses may be acceptable in terms of amenity,

character and visual effects, in the context of administering the consent conditions

and providing clarity and certainty, I consider the Design Requirements, as agreed

during expert witness conferencing, are appropriate. As noted at paragraph 8.6, I

would not object to the inclusion of an explanatory note based on the additional

principle proposed by Mr McIndoe in his evidence.

8.10 The suite of Proposed Conditions now proposed by Panuku includes a new

Condition 25B31 which requires the base and public space design proposals to be

reviewed by their Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”), with a report prepared and

submitted to the Council to support the certifying process required by Conditions 23

29 Outlined in Paragraph 6.23(a) of the evidence of Graeme McIndoe, E7, page 0218. 30 Paragraph 6.23(b), E7, page 0219. 31 Proposed conditions attached to evidence of K Cook and V Lala, E19, pages 1186-7.

1602

10

– 25. In my opinion, this is a positive addition and will contribute an additional level

of robustness to the design review and certification process.

Hobson Wharf – Scale and Suitability for Events

8.11 In my Report, I responded to the issue of the scale of the Hobson Wharf extension

and the suggestion by VHHL that the northernmost 10 metres could be removed. I

noted that I considered the additional public access to the water’s edge provided by

the wharf extension and breakwaters to be positive. I did not consider the removal

of public access in this area to be an improved outcome. However, I supported the

alternative suggested provision of this public access by way of a temporary structure

that could be removed following completion of the event, if this were feasible.32

8.12 Having read the evidence of Karl Cook and Vijay Lala, Graeme McIndoe, and Craig

Jones, I agree that this alternative solution would not result in an improved outcome.

I consider no amendment to the extent of Hobson Wharf should be required.

8.13 I also note that the eastern breakwater is now proposed to be reduced in width from

10m to 2m requiring public access to be removed. While this reduces the extent of

additional public access provided by the proposal, this reduction will be small and I

remain of the opinion that the proposal will provide particular benefit in enabling

people to experience the marine environment from a range of vantage points. In

this respect I agree with the opinion of Mr McIndoe.33

8.14 My Report commented on the constrained access to the Hobson Wharf extension

and the proposed public plaza. The limited dimension, rear face of the Maritime

Museum building that fronts the connection and its service and carparking function

contributes to the poor connectivity to the proposed public space on the wharf

extension. I noted that the poor connectivity and dislocation of the wharf extension

from the primary waterfront axis would reduce its suitability as an event space in

legacy mode34. I suggested that in legacy mode, the space would be best suited as

a destination with a purpose built facility rather than a general open space for public

realm events.35 The evidence of Craig Jones has been very helpful to better

understand the demand and potential use for the space. I accept his evidence36 that

the space is suitable for a range of activities that do not require open visual and

32 CB141, page 3689, paragraph 5.4. 33 E7, page 0207, paragraphs 5.19 and 5.20. 34 CB141, page 3686, paragraph 4.25. 35 CB141, page 3687, paragraph 4.29. 36 E8, pages 0274-6, paragraphs 8.1 to 8.8.

1603

11

physical connectivity to the main open space axis and the conclusion that it would

make a positive contribution to the public realm.

8.15 In my Report I recommended that the Design Guidelines be expanded to include the

design of the western side of Hobson Wharf, to improve visual cues to the public

plaza on the extension. This area has been included in the new Design

Requirements document (identified in Figure 4 so that the Generic Public Open

Space Design Requirements in Section 4 apply to this area, with specific

requirements for Hobson Wharf set out in Clauses 5.1 – 5.3).

Public Access

8.16 My Report noted that an important feature of the waterfront is the creation of a strong

waterfront axis and a high quality public realm that creates good physical and visual

access to the marine environment. The proposal will result in a number of additional

spaces to access the water’s edge. However, the location of bases and their

requirement to seamlessly access the water will result in two key areas of reduced

connectivity: the closing of the southern portion of Brigham Street and reduced

connectivity around the Halsey Street Wharf (particularly the eastern side of the

Viaduct Events Centre)37. I also noted the reduced visual connection to the upper

level viewing platform. I recommended a number of conditions to ensure continued

public access to the water’s edge and viewing areas. I also recommended that the

Design Guidelines be expanded to address the western side of the Halsey Street

Wharf.

8.17 The evidence of Karl Cook and Vijay Lala addresses the issues I identified in relation

to public access38. I agree that the conditions recommended at paragraph 9.125 of

their evidence address the intent of most of my recommendations and provide a

reasonable balance between enabling safe and efficient operation of the syndicate

bases (and their construction and demolition as required) and the provision of public

use and access to the coastal edge. I can also confirm that the Design

Requirements document attached to the Urban Design and Landscape Architecture

JWS addresses the open space to the west and east of the Viaduct Events Centre

(Base A), by being identified in Figure 4 with the ‘General Public Open Space Design

Requirements’ being applicable, together with ‘Location Specific Public Open Space

Design Requirements’ set out in Sections 5.4 – 5.6.

37 CB141, pages 3685-6, paragraphs 4.18 – 4.24. 38 E19, pages 1123-6, paragraphs 9.115 – 9.126.

1604

12

8.18 My report included a recommendation that a condition be included ensuring that

public access along the Brigham Street alignment is re-instated at the completion of

the consent duration.39 I remain of the opinion that such a condition is suitable to

mitigate the adverse effect arising from the reduced coastal edge connectivity from

the closing of the southern portion of Brigham Street. In my opinion, provision for a

minimum 10m wide pedestrian and cycle access way would be appropriate and

could be included in proposed Condition 6A. I suggest the following wording to

address this (and note that Ms Broadbent includes these changes in the revised set

of conditions attached to her evidence):

6A. The consent holder shall give at least one (1) month’s written notice to the Team

Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central prior to the commencement of any

Base Removal Works, such notice to be accompanied by the following details:

…

d) For the removal of Bases C-G, plans detailing the site surface and

boundary treatment, and the provision of public pedestrian and cycling

access along the coastal edge to a minimum width of 10 metres; and

…

Advice note: The intention behind the access requirement in condition 6A d)

is to ensure, on an interim basis, a minimum level of public pedestrian and

cycling access along the coastal edge upon the removal of Bases C-G. It is

acknowledged that the precise width and details of long term legacy access

along the coastal edge of Wynyard Point will be the subject of a future planning

exercise concerning the proposed Headland Park and related open space and

connections.

9. CONDITIONS / MITIGATION

9.1 As set out above, an agreed Design Requirements document is contained in the

Urban Design and Landscape Architecture JWS as Attachment 2. Section 3 of the

JWS notes that agreement could not be reached on whether there was scope to

accommodate additional design flexibility in the document. While I accept that there

could be a further explanatory note included to describe the differing contexts for

Base B and Bases C – G, I do not agree with the other amendments recommended

in the evidence of Graeme McIndoe.

9.2 In terms of the Proposed Conditions, I support the addition of Condition 25B to

enhance the robustness of the design review and certification process. In my

opinion, Conditions 23 – 25B provide a suitable framework to ensure that adverse

39 CB141, page 3692, paragraph 6.1.

1605

13

amenity effects are avoided and the proposal will achieve the amenity outcomes

described in the Urban Design report contained in the Application AEE.

9.3 In my opinion, proposed conditions 195 – 197A are suitable to ensure good public

access is maintained to the water’s edge and established viewing areas. As noted

in Paragraph 8.17 above, I also consider it would be appropriate to include a

requirement for reinstatement of the public access along the eastern side of

Wynyard Point at the completion of the consent duration.

9.4 My Report recommended the addition of a condition requiring the public space

design features outlined in the Design Guidelines to be implemented prior to the

occupation of the America’s Cup bases40. I accept the opinion of Mr McIndoe that

given the fast tracked process, this places an onerous constraint on the process and

construction sequence.41 I agree with proposed Condition 25A which requires the

implementation of the design features outlined in the Design Requirements

document prior to the first Event.

9.5 In my review I recommended a condition precluding the use of wharf extensions

(Hobson and Wynyard) for public carparking. This has been included as Condition

198.

9.6 I also recommended a condition limiting vehicles access and parking on Hobson

Wharf to that which is essential to service the Maritime Museum and the America’s

Cup Base B42. Proposed Condition 179(b) addresses these matters adequately.

10. CONCLUSIONS

10.1 In my opinion, hosting the America’s Cup will bring considerable benefit to the

continued evolution of the Auckland waterfront. I consider that the base

configuration proposed will make a positive contribution to the vitality and character

of the wider area and the creation of an integrated village atmosphere for the event.

10.2 Following the consent period, I consider that the proposal will provide a number of

positive legacies, including the upgrading of Wynyard Wharf and the adjacent land,

the extension of Hobson Wharf and the creation of additional opportunities to access

the water’s edge from wharves and breakwaters.

40 CB141, paragraphs 4.35 (page 3688) and 6.1 (page 3692). 41 E7, page 0228, paragraphs 7.15 and 7.16. 42 CB141, page 3693, paragraph 6.1.

1606

14

10.3 Given the time constraints to enable the event to proceed and in the absence of

certainty around the base and public realm designs, I consider the Design

Requirements document is suitable to administer as a condition of consent. In my

opinion, the addition of Condition 25B, setting out requirements for a review process

by Panuku’s TAG, provides additional robustness to the administration of the Design

Requirements document and the certification process. In my opinion, building in

greater flexibility to the Design Requirements is not necessary to enable the

establishment of short term structures and could challenge the level of certainty that

the document currently provides. However, as noted, I have not had the opportunity

to view the section 274 parties’ evidence on this issue, and further discussions

among the experts may be useful once the parties’ statements of evidence in chief

have been exchanged.

10.4 I support Conditions 195 – 197A relating to public access. However, I also

recommend that Condition 6A is expanded to also require reinstatement of public

access (pedestrian and cycle) along the eastern side of Brigham Street at the

completion of the consent duration.

Rebecca Skidmore

21 August 2018

1607