raumati / character assessment · 1 introduction 1 1.1 scope of character assessment 1 1.2...

Prepared for Kāpiti Coast District Council by Urban Perspectives & MWH | January 2011

K C D C L O C A L C H A R A C T E R R E V I E W

R A U M A T I / C H A R A C T E R A S S E S S M E N T

C O N T E N T S

1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

1.1 SCOPE OF CHARACTER ASSESSMENT 1

1.2 METHODOLOGY/RESEARCH METHODS 2

2 B A C K G R O U N D 4

2.1 CHOOSING FUTURES 4

2.2 CHOOSING FUTURES: LOCAL OUTCOMES RAUMATI BEACH & RAUMATI SOUTH 6

2.3 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 8

3 N A T U R A L C H A R A C T E R 1 1

3.1 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY/LANDSCAPE SETTING 11

3.2 SLOPE ANALYSIS 11

3.3 OPEN SPACE STRUCTURE/GREEN NETWORK 13

3.4 SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION 13

4 B U I L T C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S 1 5

4.1 SPATIAL FORM & STRUCTURE 15

4.2 SUBDIVISION AGE 17

4.3 BUILDING AGE 19

4.4 BUILDING HEIGHT 21

4.5 SITE COVERAGE 22

4.6 LOT PATTERNS (SIZE AND SHAPE) 23

4.7 BUILDING LOCATION 24

4.8 STREETSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS 25

4.9 SUMMARY 28

5 D I S T R I C T P L A N R E V I E W 3 0

5.1 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA PROVISIONS 30

5.2 ASSESSMENT 33

5.3 OTHER MATTERS: STREET UPGRADES, COASTAL HAZARD REVIEW AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 36

6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 3 8

KCDC / Character Review, Raumati Prepared for KCDC by Urban Perspectives & MWH | January 2011 1

1 I N T R O D U C T I O N The process undertaken to develop the Kāpiti Coast: Choosing Futures Local Outcome documents for Greater Ōtaki, Raumati South and Paekākāriki identified a number of concerns and community preferences with regard to the character of these areas. The distinctive characteristics of the built environment in all three areas were identified. There was a concern that new residential development was occurring that was out of step with the local character of the area.

Kāpiti Coast District Council engaged MWH and Urban Perspectives to develop local character studies for Ōtaki, Raumati and Paekākāriki. The purpose of these studies is to determine whether the District Plan rules provide an adequate framework to protect the character of local communities, and to develop specific design guides where appropriate to respond to local character issues.

This paper provides a character review of Raumati, with a special emphasis on the parts along the coastline. The two other areas - Ōtaki and Paekākāriki are covered in separate documents.

Objectives The primary objectives of the study are:

a. assess the present character of Raumati (identify its essential character attributes);

b. review the effectiveness of current District Plan provisions to maintain this character; and

c. recommend relevant ‘character’ management provisions for new development .

1.1 SCOPE OF CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

Study Area The total study area covers Raumati Beach and Raumati South. The focus area covers the parts along the coastline, including the areas to the west of Hillcrest Rd, Renown Rd, Margaret Rd and Alexander Rd. The boundaries of the total study area and the focus areas indicated on the Map on the next page in blue and red respectively. This document provides a general character overview for the total study area and a more detailed analysis of the focus area.

Kāpiti Coast District: Location of Study Areas


Scope of Assessment The aim of the study is to identify typical/common features and predominant patterns which make up the collective character of Raumati and contribute to its significance.

‘Character’ includes both built and natural elements and is largely determined by the relationship and the unique combination between these elements. To this end, the assessment of Raumati is focused on understanding underlying patterns relating to matters such as landform and open space; spatial structure; building location and character, site coverage and perception of density; and local streetscape characteristics.

Thus, the emphasis is on the size, form, orientation, layout, location and alignment of buildings rather than on the more detailed features like construction techniques, decorative/stylistic detail, or the detailed use of materials, colour and/or landscape treatment. However, these secondary features are also briefly outlined.

The key characteristics of Raumati investigated in the study include:

Subdivision & building age

Building height

Site coverage

Frontage setbacks/front yards and separation distances/side yards

Lot size and shape

Spatial structure

Streetscape character

Current District Plan provisions have also been identified and analysed in relation to the characteristic patterns of the study area.

1.2 METHODOLOGY/RESEARCH METHODS The character assessment of Raumati is based on a combination of the following research methods and techniques:

Streetscape Appraisal This is an expert field study of the area identifying important and consistent streetscape characteristics. The streetscape analysis also identifies any notable ‘local streetscapes’ that for whatever reason might have a higher amenity/character value.


Use of Council’s Data and GIS Information Patterns of subdivision and building age, site coverage and building height have been determined based on records and information from the Council’s database and GIS. A series of maps, all to a single scale, have been composed to show the distribution of buildings with similar development patterns.

Information on lot size was obtained along with parcel information from Land Information NZ (LINZ).

Measurements This involves measuring typical block sizes and frontage setbacks from aerial photographs with marked cadastral boundaries.

Interpretation of Results The information from Council’s records and GIS databases and the results of the measurements have been recorded and analysed individually. This analysis was then verified against and integrated with the results from the streetscape analysis. The collective use of the identified research methods allows an objective assessment of the area’s character and helps to inform recommendations for any changes to the current planning provisions.

The accuracy of the database is not absolute. It is, however, sufficiently accurate for the purpose of the study - which is to identify important patterns of development within the study area. Nevertheless, this does not substitute for the detailed analysis of any particular building. Should individual buildings warrant further study, investigations should verify the accuracy of this base data.


2 B A C K G R O U N D

2.1 CHOOSING FUTURES In 2004 the Council engaged with the community in the Kāpiti Coast: Choosing Futures process under the Local Government Act 2002, through which the community’s long-term vision for the district was identified. From this process the following documents were prepared:

Kāpiti Coast: Choosing Futures: Community Plan

Kāpiti Coast: Choosing Futures: Community Outcomes

Kāpiti Coast: Choosing Futures: Community Outcomes: Local Outcomes

The Community Plan and Community Outcomes documents were reviewed and updated in 2009. The Community Outcomes document identifies the community’s vision for the district as a whole and the Local Outcomes documents identify the community’s vision for specific areas. The Community Plan sets out what Council will do in response to this vision and its statutory responsibilities.

The Community Plan 2009 sets out seven community outcomes that the Council aims to achieve. Outcome 2 is of particular relevance to issues of character in the district:

Outcome 2: Local Character is retained within a cohesive District.

This outcome is concerned with recognising, protecting and preserving the unique character of various communities while also nurturing those things that create a sense of community as a whole.

With respect to Development Management, the Community Plan identifies that a benefit of “strategic planning and policy development to manage growth pressures” is that “urban areas retain their unique character and existing amenity”. It is also noted that “place, local character and the quality of open space including its links with biodiversity, are seen both as ends in themselves and as a means to attract and retain people as part of the development a more sustainable local economy.”

The seven community outcomes identified in the Community Plan are expanded on in the Community Outcomes document. Of relevance to the character of Raumati are the following:

Outcome 1: There are healthy natural systems which people can enjoy

Outcome 1.1 key natural areas shape the fundamental form and quality of the District’s settlements:

The coast in its entirety is recognised:

as being central to the local culture and lifestyle;

as a place that is valued for its natural and wild feel;

and that this is supported by:


avoiding any further new greenfields subdivision on the front dunes and associated wetlands.

The coastal escarpment and coastal hills are recognised:

as a major and valued landscape feature of the District;

and that this is supported by:

encouraging landowners to support regeneration of native rather than exotic trees;

avoiding building on the escarpment face and front face of coastal hills.

Outcome 1.4: that the coast is managed:

in a way that tries to keep the coastal edge as natural as possible.

Outcome 1.5: that the District becomes known for best practice subdivision design that includes trees, landforms, waterways, parks, walkways, cycleways and bridleways as features in developments.

Outcome 1.7: that vulnerable areas of native vegetation and wildlife are protected.

Outcome 2: Local character is retained within a cohesive District

Outcome 2.1: that the role, nature and character of each of Kāpiti Coast’s towns, villages, local and special areas, is respected and retained, and shapes the future form and quality of the District.

That the nine ‘villages areas’ within the District – Raumati South, Raumati Beach, Waikanae Beach, Te Horo Beach, Ōtaki Beach, Peka Peka, Te Horo, Reikorangi and Otaihanga – are recognised as:

important areas of local character;

having a low-key, generally low rise, beach, rural or semi-rural village feel that is valued;

having strong connections to surrounding natural areas;

and that they are supported by:

ensuring that local characteristics and amenity are protected;

fitting improvements to local retail areas, facilities and coastal protection to the character and natural feel of each area.

Raumati South maintain the low rise, large section sizes, trees and ‘higgledy piggledy’ location of houses that give character;

retain strong links with the natural spaces of Queen Elizabeth Park;

increase the amount of active regeneration space and provide access along the beach edge.


Raumati Beach maintain the character of low-rise, large section sizes of the surrounding area;

support the local shopping area, possibly explore some medium density housing around shops;

continue to enhance the park area and provide access along the coastal walls.

Outcome 2.4: that the design of buildings and infrastructure is more in keeping with the character of the Kāpiti Coast.

Outcome 3: The nature and rate of population growth is appropriate to community goals

Outcome 3.2: that key natural features and the character and scale of communities should shape the location of population growth in a way that supports community outcomes and vision.

Outcome 3.4: that intensification is explored in specified areas and where it clearly contributes to wider community goals of:

supporting the vitality/character of specified town centres.

Outcome 3.5: the specified areas for exploring medium density housing are:

Raumati Beach, provided it is away from the beach itself

2.2 CHOOSING FUTURES: LOCAL OUTCOMES RAUMATI BEACH & RAUMATI SOUTH The following additional outcomes in the Raumati Beach and Raumati South Local Outcomes statement are considered relevant to the character of those areas.

Raumati Beach Outcome 1: There are healthy natural systems which people can enjoy

1.4: That physical and visual connections from the Village Centre to MarIne Gardens are strengthened.

1.5: That connections to the beach along Garden Road are enhanced through footpath enhancement and design/public art features.

Outcome 4: The District’s resources are used wisely

4.1: That Raumati Beach is known for quality mixed use design of housing that is energy and water efficient.

4.5: That entrances to Marine Gardens are designed as an integral part of the Village heart.

4.6: That the connections from the Village Centre to the beach are enhanced with visual markers along Garden Road.

Raumati South Outcome 1: There are healthy natural systems which people can enjoy


1.2: That the natural landform of dunes and hollows in Raumati South is retained and the natural areas are enhanced with native planting.

1.3: That property owners are encouraged and supported to plant locally indigenous native trees on their properties, to assist in creating ecological corridors with Queen Elisabeth Park, Raumati Escarpment and Kāpiti Island.

Outcome 2: Local character is retained within a cohesive district

2.1: That Raumati South continues to be known for relaxed low density living where the low density character, natural landforms and views of the beach are retained. Housing intensification should only be explored within easy walking distance of the proposed Raumati South railway station, once this is developed.

2.2: That the Raumati South Village Centre is supported by street upgrades in Poplar Avenue. This upgrade will include large street trees, textured paving, distinctive tree planting, changes to pedestrian crossing points, and traffic calming, with a strong entrance to the village developed at the intersection of Poplar Avenue and Glen Road.

2.3: That any new commercial development is built to the street with interactive street frontages at ground level and a continuity of pedestrian shelter and verandahs to provide an enhanced street edge definition as an integral part of building design.

2.4: That physical and visual connections from the Raumati South village Centre to The Esplanade and the sea are strengthened through footpath design, public art features and street furniture including more seating for the elderly.

2.5: That the Esplanade beachfront is upgraded with an attractive innovative solution to the bank erosion and beach access providing a destination for local residents with easy beach access for all ages and abilities.

2.6: That community character and cohesion is not destroyed by the development of regional transport infrastructure and there is a clear entrance to Raumati South from the State Highway.

2.7: That traffic speed is reduced within the Village Centre to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, access to shops and links with the coast.

Outcome 3: The nature and rate of population growth is appropriate to community goals

3.1: That there are opportunities for medium density housing within easy walking distance of the proposed Raumati South Railway Station to support public transport , but the low density character of the rest of Raumati South is retained.

3.2: That mixed use, retail, office and apartments are encouraged within the Raumati South commercial area with high design quality and careful consideration of existing low density character.

Outcome 5: There is increased choice to work locally

5.1: That economic benefits of good design are recognised and design controls placed on developments to promote a quality environment in which to live, work and play.


2.3 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The Kāpiti Coast: Choosing Futures: Development Management Strategy sets out the Council’s strategy for the management of development and settlement patterns on the Kāpiti Coast. It sets a framework for the management of location and intensity of growth pressures and change, the improvement of the quality of the built environment, and the development management process the Council will follow.

The Development Management Strategy states that a main feature of Outcome 3 of the Community Outcomes document is that “new population growth is located in a way that supports community outcomes and vision. In particular, key natural features and the character and scale of community should shape location of growth”.

Part 2 of the Development Management Strategy deals with the form of the district. The following policies are relevant to the character of Raumati:

Policy 2.1(a) The basic development form of the District will:

be fundamentally shaped by the key landform elements of the District of dunes, inter-dune wetlands, river and streams, escarpment and coastal hills and remnant native forest and ecological sites;

retain stream and river corridors, including stream and river mouths and estuaries as major features of any developed area;

enable restoration of riparian vegetation to create corridors between the coast and the coastal hills;

protect remaining coastal dunes within the existing urban areas;

retain and protect coastal dunes and wetlands within the wider rural areas;

protect the landscape values of the coastal hills and escarpment;

retain and protect remnant stands of native forest.

Policy 2.1(b) The landscapes within which the District settlements exist will be a major context for managing development and change. This framework of landscape incorporates:

consideration of natural beauty and character.

Policy 2.3(a) New urban development...will not occur along the remaining undeveloped coastal edge, associated back dunes and inter-dune wetlands, except on land currently zoned (2006) as residential.

Policy 2.4(a) Urban development will occur within a broad ‘consolidation framework’

continued recognition of Raumati as a unique village, with very limited capacity for expansion of the residential area.

Policy 2.6(a) The Kāpiti Coast District’s transport and access network will be developed in a way that:

delivers a quality design and a network that recognises and respects the character and qualities of local areas.

Part 3 of the Development Management Strategy sets out Council’s strategic approach to urban structure, the content relevant to character is included below:


Policy 3.1(a) The Kāpiti Coast urban area consists of a series of unique communities along the coast, each with their own character but linked by a common lifestyle focused on the beaches, natural areas and enjoyment of low-key living. This distinctiveness and commonality is acknowledged as a framework guiding development management within the urban areas.

Raumati one of the older beach settlements where the old dune landforms have largely been retained;

low density, generally low rise beach village feel;

strong connections to beach area and to the south, Queen Elizabeth Park.

The overall area has a number of distinctive sub-communities: Raumati South and Raumati Beach neighbourhood centre, Raumati Beach, with Marine Gardens and the larger commercial area.The major challenges for these areas is first to maintain the scale and style of domestic buildings in an area where there will be development pressure on the coast. The second is to support the local centres, the third to ensure the Western Link Road is developed in a way sympathetic to local character where possible.

Part 3.2 of the Development Management Strategy addresses the centres and the following sets out the characteristics which have been identified for recognition in Raumati:

Raumati Beach Centre

unique in that it has an important Marine Gardens and the beach and a number of speciality shops as well as shops catering for day to day needs;

attracts people from beyond the surrounding suburbs;

is primarily a retail area and some professional services;

unlikely to expand beyond that into other activities but is very significant in terms of character, urban quality, potential as a recreation destination and as a community focal point.

Policy 3.4(a) The low density urban areas of Kāpiti Coast will be maintained as first principle. Management within these areas will focus on reflecting and maintaining particular character, where that has been identified by the community as being of value.

Part 4 of the Development Management Strategy focuses on design and process, with the following information relevant to character:

Policy 4.1(a) Kāpiti Coast District Council is committed to following best practice in the area of urban design and development, including:

a high quality of architectural form and integration with surrounding areas and landscapes;

promoting reference to local heritage and culture in building design.


4.2 Process

Kāpiti Coast District Council will continue to use collaborative, integrated design and planning processes as the basis for addressing development management issues.


3 N A T U R A L C H A R A C T E R Raumati South (focus area) is a coastal settlement which has been developed on a comprehensive dune system which is approximately 1km to the west of SH1 one and the Mataihuka Hill escarpment.

Raumati Beach (focus area) has also been developed on the underlying dune system; however the topography in this area is lower and less undulating than that of Raumati South. Raumati Beach borders the settlement of Paraparaumu and Paraparaumu Beach, which are directly to the north.

This landscape is slightly undulating, with greater elevation to the west, adjacent to Rosetta Road, where dunes are more prominent. The wider Raumati landscape, outside of the coastal focus areas, is also developed on the easternmost dunes near Matai Road where the dunes are much older than those which are closer to the coast. The wider Raumati landscape flattens out and becomes more rural in character further to the east of the settlement beyond Gavin Road and Fincham Road.

3.1 LANDFORM/TOPOGRAPHY/LANDSCAPE SETTING The landscape setting for Raumati South and Raumati Beach is dominated by the coastal dune system, which creates a

series of rises and hollows. As a result, the landscape setting and associated views can vary significantly from location to location. For example, towards the east in Leinster Ave the escarpment to the east is visually dominant, however this is not visible from many other areas of Raumati closer to the coast. Likewise, the coast and Kāpiti Island are visually dominant features of the landscape atop dune crests and from properties situated along the coast, however the coast is not visible in much of Raumati South and most of Raumati Beach.

The landform in Raumati South is dominated by large sand dunes. There does not appear to have been much in the way of excavation. Development generally follows the natural form of the dunes often with one side of a street at a much higher elevation than the other side.

Raumati Beach is also dominated by high sand dunes. Properties on the seaward or western side of Matatua Road are located either at the top of the dune, or with frontage to the coast, have strong visual linkage to the coast and to Kāpiti Island. However, properties in the hollow behind this dune have no visual link to the coast, as it is blocked by the dune.

3.2 SLOPE ANALYSIS The slopes and topography associated with the dune system dominate both the character and pattern of development in

Raumati. Four linear rows of sand dunes, which run parallel to the coast, are approximately fifteen to twenty five metres above sea level. The dune systems appear to have influenced the street network, which often follow the toe of the dune. Due to the sheer scale and linearity of the dune systems, views to the coast and the escarpment are often restricted from within the valleys created by the dunes (refer Aerial Map on the next page).

The southern section of Raumati South, between Forest Road and The Esplanade, has been developed on dunes which are up to forty metres above sea level.


The dune formations in Raumati Beach are similar to Raumati South in that they run parallel to the coast and reach approximate heights of twenty metres above sea level. Street orientation and location on the dune system is different to that of Raumati, with narrow streets winding up through the steep dune adjacent to the coast, and more grid like street patterns in the flat area of Raumati Beach.

The natural dune systems also extend into the wider Raumati landscape. Dunes, which reach heights of up to twenty five metres above sea level, also occur much further east than in other coastal settlement areas. (The character of the landform of the total study area is illustrated on Elevation Map on next page).


3.3 OPEN SPACE STRUCTURE/GREEN NETWORK The public open space structure is comprised of street corridors, parks, the beach and undeveloped dune areas to the

east of the urban settlement particularly in Raumati South. There are a number of public green areas in the Raumati area, including Queen Elizabeth Park to the south, Tennis Court Road Reserve, Margaret Road Reserve, school playing fields, and the Marine Gardens, Weka Park and a small reserve at the start of Arawa Street in Raumati Beach.

In the southern area of Raumati South the street corridors are typically very narrow with either one formed footpath, or grass verges with no formed footpath. The informal character of these streets is an integral part of the ‘beachy’ atmosphere of the area. There are exceptions to this street pattern, notably the main roads and bus routes of Poplar Ave and Rosetta Road, which have wider carriage ways and formed footpaths on either side to provide for greater traffic flows. The new subdivision around Hillcrest Road however has a markedly different, more formal roading pattern, with formed footpaths on either side of a wide carriage-way on a residential street, with grass verges between both the footpath and private properties, and the footpath and the road.

In Raumati Beach, the streets leading from the main road, Matatua Road, to the coast are typically narrow with no formed footpath, and narrow grass verges. Raumati Road and streets on the flat area of Raumati Beach to the east of the coastal dune, are typically wider with formed footpaths.

In general there is no strong pattern of street trees (except for Alexander Road). For the most part, the green network is represented by planting within the private properties. There is well established vegetation on private land, including a significant number of large mature trees. This is a recurring characteristic feature of both Raumati South and Raumati Beach. A notable exception to this is the new subdivision area around Loma Irene Drive, which has a much higher building density, and lower level, more manicured vegetation on private properties.

3.4 SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION Aerial vegetation maps were produced using GIS information to gain an indicative calculation of the vegetation coverage in the Raumati Beach and Raumati South focus areas. This process included defining approximate boundaries surrounding areas of significant mature vegetation visible on the GIS aerial photographs.

Calculations derived from this data, indicate that the approximate vegetation cover for the focus area to be 24.6%. Road corridors and land identified in the District Plan to be open space have been excluded from this equation. The percentage is also exclusive of any potential low lying vegetation which may also be of ecological, functional or cultural value. It is therefore estimated that total vegetation cover is likely to be higher than the figure derived as an output of the GIS mapping exercise.

Both the Raumati South and Raumati Beach focus areas were originally draped in indigenous vegetation and this section of the Kapiti Coast currently has a much higher percentage of vegetation than Otaki Beach and Paekakariki. Both Maori and European settlement resulted in the clearing of land for building villages and housing. This destruction of ecosystems saw the decline of indigenous flora and fauna and increased opportunities for invasive weed species. A mixture of mature exotic and indigenous vegetation can now be found in the Raumati focus areas.

Aspects of the focus areas which contain higher proportions of vegetation are commonly found on steeper slopes and at the southern end of the focus area where the landscape is more undulating, less developed, less disturbed and more established. There is also a higher percentage of vegetation visible in areas where building density is lower.


The age and composition of the vegetation is highly variable across the two focus areas and notable vegetation (refer Vegetation Map on next page). Listed notable trees are indicated on District Plan Map of the area.

Vegetation location often correlates to topography, where sites with greater slopes and increased elevations appear to have larger patches of remnant or mature vegetation. Large, mature trees are a significant feature of the Raumati South skyline, and a significant component of the character of Raumati generally.


4 B U I L T C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S

4.1 SPATIAL FORM & STRUCTURE

Method Analysis of the spatial form & structure of Raumati is based on:

field work;

interpretation of aerial photographs; and

indicative measurements of block dimensions taken from cadastral maps scale 1:2000.

Analysis and Interpretation

Spatial Form, Sense of Place and Local Identity

Raumati is a linear settlement stretching along the coastline for approximately 5km. The area has two distinctive parts - Raumati South and Raumati Beach. The existing school grounds and the park to the south are perceived as a transitional area separating Raumati Beach from Raumati South.

Raumati South covers a larger area and relative to Raumati Beach has a more consistent block structure. However, its commercial centre is much smaller.

Raumati Beach is smaller and more compact. The topography around its coastal edge is more pronounced. Its village centre is a well known shopping destination that is further supported by the presence of the Marine Gardens.

The total study area as a whole has a strong sense of place based on:

Distinctive natural context - including expressive topography, continuous interface with the coastline and a strong association with the beach.

Expansive views to surrounding natural elements within and around the area, as well as visibility to more distant features such as Kāpiti Island and the Mataihuka Hill escarpment.

Well defined shopping/commercial precinct at the west end of Raumati Rd (Raumati Beach Village Centre) and adjacent Marine Gardens with direct access to the beach.

Variable open spaces some of which provide recreational and sports facilities.

Cross streets and walkways that promote connection (physical and visual) to the sea and improve orientation.

Landmarks areas/destinations such as Raumati Beach Village Centre; the Marine Gardens, the Esplanade.


Block Structure

The block structure of Raumati is based on a generic grid altered by the land form. Overall, blocks tend to be narrower and relatively more regular in shape at the southern end of the area (refer Street Block Map on next page).

Most blocks in Raumati South are excessively long (500-600m) which affects the permeability of the area, especially within the areas fronting the beach. Existing cross-block walkways, however, promote pedestrian access to the beach. Typical block width ranges between 100m and 130m.

Block patterns in Rauamti Beach are more variable (in both dimensions and proportions) and reflect the more dynamic character of the land form.

The significant length of the majority of the blocks determines the relatively low permeability of the area in an east/west direction and limits the frequency of cross block connections to the beach.

Street Network /Character

The street network is dominated by streets running in a north/south direction. However, the variable landform prevents the possibility of continuous streets linking the north and south ends of the area. Rather, the north-south running streets connect to several main cross streets (in east/west direction). Poplar Ave and Rauamti Rd provide connection to SH1, while the others are of local significance.

Cul-de-sacs are typical for a limited number of locations and recently subdivided land, primarily along the periphery of the area.

There is not a single common pattern of street character. Street width is variable, topography is diverse. However, in some instances streets with identical orientation share common characteristics.

Most streets have footpaths and/or berms running on one side or in some instances with no footpath at all. Street trees are not a characteristic feature of the area as a whole. An exception to this pattern is Alexander Rd where there is a strong pattern of mature street trees.

Many streets have a lower and higher side, which to a great extent accounts for differences in the built character along the respective sides of the same street. Often dwellings on the lower side of such streets are positioned below street level with roof forms being the most visible elements. Because of topography, some streets are dominated, at least on one side, by steep heavily vegetated banks/escarpments with little visual connection to any built structures.

Topography & Built Form

Overall, most of the existing buildings relate well to the character of the land form. The majority of the buildings tend to be located within the flatter parts of their sites and as a whole there is no obvious ‘scarring’ of the natural form of the area - an impression which is strongly enhanced by the existing extensive mature vegetation throughout the area and particularly that on the steeper parts.

Large retaining walls or structures are typically found along the edges of some steeper streets. However, they not a recurring feature of the character of the area as whole.


4.2 SUBDIVISION AGE

Method

Subdivision Age

Information on subdivision age was derived from data collected in the Council’s ‘Subdivision age project’ conducted in 2007 by Council’s historian Ron Prockter. Seven subdivision age categories were identified (within 20 year periods). Percentages of lots within these categories were recorded (for both the total study and the focus area) and their geographic distribution plotted on a single map (refer Subdivision Age Map on next page).

Analysis and Interpretation Subdivision Age - The graphic and numerical information on subdivision age for the total study area and that for the focus area show similar trends. However, the data indicates that subdivision started within the focus area first (the land adjacent to the coast), that is from west to east.

Figures show that most of the subdivision in the total study area (approximately 70%) occurred prior to 1950. The subdivision age profile in the focus area, while similar in trend, is more pronounced with approximately 95% of the lots being subdivided prior to 1950 and virtually no subdivision, apart from infill, recorded after 1970.

The figures are:

Subdivision Age Total Area/Percentage of lots Focus Area/Percentage of lots

1901-1930 40.93% 64.4%

1931-1950 28.2% 29.6%

1951-1970 15.3% 5.3%

1971-1990 5.7% 0.1%

1991-2000 + 3.7% 0.3%

2001+ 5.6% 0.2%

Unknown 0.5% 0.0%

General comments

The majority of the lots were created during the period 1901-1930. The lots created during this period cover the majority of the focus area and particularly the parts along the beach front. The size of the lots created during this period are variable. Most of the lots along fronting the beach are large and very large lots (900-1200sq m).

Total Area

Focus Area


The second major stage of development (1931-1950) includes the subdivision of the land to the east/immediately adjacent to lots developed in the previous period up to 1930. The lots developed during this period appear in identifiable clusters - the most prominent being around Kainui Rd; Clunie Ave; Karaka Grove; and Alexander/Ngaio Rd. Lots within these clusters tend to be of similar size and character.

Subdivision during the period 1951-1970 is concentrated around several locations, situated primarily within the eastern edges of the total study area.

Subdivision during the period (1970-2000+) relates to 15% of all lots. It is focused around two major locations (both outside the focus area) including the land around Hillcrest Rd and Lorna - Irene Dr.

The low key/beachy character of the original subdivision patterns have been largely maintained.

Consistency of lot size and shape relates to consistency of land form and/or to subdivision age.

There is little co-relation between subdivision age and building age.


4.3 BUILDING AGE

Method

Building Age

Information on building age was derived from QV Property Category Codes sourced from KCDC database.

Six building age categories were identified within twenty year periods. The percentages of buildings within these categories have been recorded and their geographic distribution throughout the study plotted on a single map (refer Building Age Map on next page). The data on building age is incomplete with gaps in information for slightly less than 10% of the buildings in the total study area.

It is acknowledged that there are inaccuracies in the base information used for this part of the research, as the QV’s database is not entirely accurate or very precise. However, the magnitude of inaccuracies would be relatively minor and not material to the intent of this study - which focuses on general and typical patterns of development.

Analysis and Interpretation The graphic and numerical information on building age indicates (for both the total and the focus areas) that most intense building development occurred during the 1950-1970’s period, followed by another spurt of development over the next 20 years. The number of buildings constructed prior the 1950 and those after the 1990 are similar but relatively low.

The building age profile of the focus area is very similar to that of the total. The only significant difference relates to a slightly higher number of buildings in the focus area being constructed during 1930-1950’s period.

The figures are:

Building Age Categories Building Age Total Area% Building Age Focus Area %

1910-1930 0.9% 1.0%

1931-1950 7.7% 13.3%

1951-1970 36.0% 37.6%

1971-1990 26.7 % 23.6%

19901-2000 7.8% 10.0%

2001+ 9.7 % 5.6%

No data 10.3% 9.1%

Focus Area

Total Area


General comments

The data records the period of construction of each dwelling. Many dwellings have been modified over time. However, knowledge of the original construction date offers useful information about the architectural character of the study area and the stages of its development.

Consistency of age can be correlated with consistency of style and building type, particularly for construction prior to 1940. This is because up till this point there were a limited range of construction techniques, materials and buildings styles used at any one time. Moreover, building age can be correlated with a limited and predictable range of building types and associated architectural styles.

Similarity of building age relates to similarity of building type and style - this is manifested in the presence of groupings of buildings and/or sub-areas of similar character (examples include the cul-de-sacs off the west side of Matatua Rd, Alexander Rd and the building clustered around Karaka Gr and Kowhai Gr)

There is little co-relation between building and subdivision age - this might suggest that many of the original houses built during the most intensive subdivision periods have been subsequently replaced with new ones.


4.4 BUILDING HEIGHT

Method Information on building height (measured as number of storeys) was derived from QV data (dated August 2008). A total number of 3950 buildings for the wider study area were surveyed from which 2202 are located within the focus area.

The percentage of buildings corresponding to one, two, three or more storey were identified and the geographic distribution of these buildings plotted on a single map (refer Building Height Map on next page).

Analysis and Interpretation There is little difference between the height patterns within the total study area and those in the focus area.

The graphic and numerical information show that total study area is a mixture of one and two storey dwellings with only an insignificant number of three storey buildings. Overall, the area is dominated by single storey dwellings which represent about two-thirds of the total number.

Calculations for the total area the focus area respectively show the following figures (percentages of the total):

Total area Focus area

1 storey 59.40% 54.9%

2 storeys 33.7% 37.8%

3 storeys 3.04% 3.6%

above 3 storeys 0.08% 0.00%

The single storey dwellings are spread almost evenly throughout the area. At various locations relatively long sections of the same street are occupied almost exclusively by single storey buildings (e.g. parts of Dale Rd, Hillcrest Rd, Karaka Rd, Kowhai Gr, etc). In general, single storey dwellings tend to be located within the flatter parts of the area.

Two storey dwellings, while dispersed throughout the area, are more typical for the elevated/dune parts. Groupings of two storey buildings clustered around the same location can be found in a number of locations.

Three storey buildings are very limited in number. Except when positioned on higher slopes, they are not prominent.

Actual and Perceived Building Height

Perception of building height is strongly influenced by the variable topography. This is because topography can often accentuate the height of buildings making them appear more prominent and taller than they actually are, especially when buildings are located on steeper sites and at higher points throughout the area. Alternatively, the height of buildings positioned in low lying areas is visually reduced when seen from street level. In addition, variation in topography can create a sense of height variation between adjacent dwellings of similar height.

Total Area

Focus Area


4.5 SITE COVERAGE

Method Site coverage has been calculated as a ratio of lot/parcel area and building footprint area, using parcel data from Land Information New Zealand. Building footprint data was captured from aerial photographs.

The information was recorded within four ‘site coverage’ categories with a 20% interval between them (staring from site coverage 20% and below). The percentage of lots within each category was identified and their geographic distribution plotted on a composite single map (refer Site Coverage Map on next page). Calculations of site coverage include all outbuildings.

Analysis and Interpretation Site coverage patterns in the focus study area are slightly different to those in the total study area. The main differences relate to the two lowest categories of site coverage - in the focus area site coverage of 20% or below accounts for the highest percentage of lots, while in the total area the highest percentage of lots have site coverage between 21- 40%. In both areas the percentage of lots with site coverage above 60% is insignificant (refer to Site Coverage Diagram on this page).

The specific figures are as follows:

Site coverage Total Area/percentage of lots Focus Area/percentages of lots

up to 20% 38.9 45.7

21% - 40% 46.3 43.8

41% - 60% 4.7 3.6

61% and above 0.3 0.2

No Data 9.8% 6.7

Site Coverage, Perception of Density and Private Open Space

The maps show that lots with site coverage of 20% or below tend to be clustered around the same location and are mainly associated with areas with a steeper topography and/or larger lots - e.g. the beach front parts of Raumati Beach and the general area along and to the east of Renown Rd/Raumati South. This, plus the presence of mature vegetation, creates an overall impression of a generally lower density area.

The low site coverage can be explained by a combination of factors, including a good number of large/deep lots with steep topography that are difficult to redevelop.

Site coverage is an indicator of density and as such is closely related to the amount of open space within each lot and associated sense of amenity. The aerial photographs of the study area show a predominant pattern of large private open spaces within the individual lots - these appear in the form of front and/or rear yards and are most of them are characterised by mature planting. A number of public open spaces of various size and character add further to the sense of openness throughout the area.

Total Area

Focus Area


4.6 LOT PATTERNS (SIZE AND SHAPE)

Method Information on lot size was sourced from Land Information New Zealand. Five lot size categories were identified and the distribution of lots within each category plotted on a composite map (refer Lot Sizes Distribution Map on next page).

Analysis and Interpretation Lot size patterns within the wider area of Raumati are almost identical to those in the focus study area. The graphic and numerical information show that the predominant lot size throughout the area is above 600m² and accounts for 86% of all lots. Within those the relative percentage of lots between 600-900m² is the highest, followed by the lots between 900-1200 m². A large number of the lots within the ‘900-1200m²’ category are located in areas immediately adjacent to the coast.

The relative percentages of very small lots (below 400 m²) and very large lots (above 1200 m²) for the total and focus areas are 6% and 11% respectively.

The figures are as follows:

Lot size Total Area/Percentage of lots Focus Area/Percentage of lots

Under 400 m² 4.8% 5.5%

400 to 599m² 8.7% 8.4%

600 to 899m² 54.8% 54.4%

900 to 1200m² 19.4% 20.5%

Above 1200m² 17.7% 10.71%

General comments

Many of the very large lots (above 1200 m²) are found along the beach front parts. Topography and access are the key constraints for further subdivision/redevelopment of those lots.

Lots with similar size tend to be clustered around the same location/street. Variation of lot size most typically corresponds to variation in topography. Typically there is, however, a repetition of common lot sizes within each block.

Most lots have a regular shape with similar proportions varying between 1:3 and 1:4. This pattern is less pronounced within the area to the north of Poplar Ave and at various locations along the east boundary of the study area, where more recent subdivision has occurred.

Many of the larger lots are very deep, up to 80-100m+. Typical frontage width is in the range 30 to 40m.

Lot orientation varies, but the majority of lots have an east-west orientation ‘facing’ the sea with their narrow side.

Total Area

Focus Area


4.7 BUILDING LOCATION

Method Analysis of building location looks at predominant patterns of frontage setbacks, side/rear yards; and building alignment. Findings on building location are based on field work and analysis of ‘figure-ground’ maps, aerial photographs and contour maps (refer Building Footprints Map on next page).

Analysis and Interpretation Typically buildings on sloping sites are located within the flat parts of the site. As a result, the underlying character of the

landform and the associated vegetation have been largely maintained.

Most buildings have generous front and/or rear yards.

The majority of the buildings are located parallel to their street boundary.

Frontage setbacks are variable and determined by the underlying topography. However, groupings of dwellings within each block have common frontage setbacks.

Shallow frontage setbacks while present in some areas are not a recurring feature. Overall, there is no pronounced consistency of frontage setback dimensions.

Separation distances are variable and on sloping sites are often difficult to determine. Large scale vegetation accentuates the separation distances between adjacent houses.


4.8 STREETSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS

Method The streetscape analysis is an expert observation of the visual qualities of the study area and its collective character as observed from a ground/street level point of view. Given the undulating topography of Raumati, views from some elevated positions were also considered.

The intention is to identify those general patterns of urban form, including groupings/concentrations of buildings of special streetscape and amenity values.

Analysis and Interpretation

Street edge definition (fencing, street walls, garages)

The street edge definition varies in relation to the land form - street edges within flatter areas are defined by either lower fences and/or landscaping, while street walls and heavily planted banks/escapements are typical for steeper locations.

Except for some garages, the majority of the buildings are setback from the street boundary. Lawns and gardens are recurring features.

Building relationship to the street, relationship between neighbouring buildings

Most buildings are aligned with the adjacent street and many of them are aligned with their neighbours.

Most buildings face the street with their narrow side. Typically buildings display a well presented front elevation with entrances, windows, and porches opening to the street.

Separation distances between buildings are accentuated by topography and associated mature vegetation. However, often the juxtaposition of dwellings within elevated locations creates the impression of dense and prominent building clusters when viewed from a distance.

Visual consistency/diversity, significant buildings/groupings of buildings

As a whole, the building character of the area is diverse. The building diversity is further accentuated by land form variation.

Buildings within steeper areas are seen as collective clusters and prominent ‘skyline’ features. This pattern is typical in views from various locations (e.g. along the Esplanade; the area around the Raumati South commercial centre; the area to the east of Weka Rd).

Expressed groupings of consistent character are limited in number. Examples of those are found in Raumati Beach (areas to the west of Matatua Rd, around Alexander Rd, Tui Rd, Kowahi Gr and Karaka Gr).


Building character (type, roof form, materials)

The area is a mixture of dwelling types with a variable scale and architectural character. They appear in a range of building/architectural styles that reflect the era of their construction.

Individual detached dwellings are the predominant building type.

Although typical batch-like dwellings are found at various locations they are not a strong and recuring feature of the area as a whole.

Sloping roofs are typical for the area as a whole. Roof forms include both gabled, hipped, as well as some flat roofs.

Building styles, including materials and detail vary depending on the period of construction. Recurring materials include weatherboards (painted or stained), plaster finish and some bricks and corrugated iron.

Corrugated iron and tiles are typical roofing materials.

Building condition/originality

Most buildings are in good condition. Most of the older buildings have been modified. However, their primary form has been retained.

Parking

Some buildings have garages integrated into the main building volume, in others garages have been added as separate structures and often built close to the street edge.


Building Types


4.9 SUMMARY Raumati is a coastal settlement with an expressed low key ‘beachy’ character, memorable natural setting and a strong sense of place. The subdivision/development of the area started from the coast and moved inland (west to east) during the 1901-1930 period and was largely completed prior to 1950.

The area’s collective identity is based on a range of distinctive attributes and development patterns which together contribute to its special character. These include:

Varying landform that influences subdivision/development patterns and creates a variety of streetscape conditions

Linear structure with large blocks that limits permeability

Street network constrained by topography with a limited number of cross streets

Streets with minimal kerb and channelling and footpath limited on one side or non-existent that contribute to the ‘informal’ character of the area

Original subdivision patterns that have been largely maintained

Predominance of medium and larger lots above 600m² up to 1200m²

Identifiable pattern/texture of development based on individual dwellings on single lots that fit in with the landform

Informal building arrangement based on variable yard dimensions accentuated by prominent clusters of established vegetation

A low density, low scale character based on one and some two storey buildings and relatively low site coverage

Diversity of building character (age, type, scale and architectural style)

Predominance of pitched roof forms in recessive colours

Building frontages with an identifiable ‘public face’

Smaller identifiable areas with ‘special characteristics’ (e.g. proximity to the coast; high visual prominence; landform largely intact; presence of mature vegetation) that are more sensitive to redevelopment (refer Diagram on the following page)


SPECIAL CHARACTER AREAS: INDICATIVE DIAGRAM


5 D I S T R I C T P L A N R E V I E W

5.1 CURRENT RESIDENTIAL AREA PROVISIONS Of particular relevance in assessing the character of Raumati Beach and Raumati South are the District Plan provisions controlling development in the Residential Zone. Rules and standards relating to aspects of the built environment such as height and lot size can have a significant impact on the character of an area.

Objective 1 of the Residential Zone is to “ensure that the low density, quiet character of the District’s residential environments is maintained and that adverse effects on the amenity values that constitute this character and make the residential environments safe, pleasant and healthy places for residents are avoided, remedied or mitigated.” In the explanation for this policy it is noted that the residential areas within the District tend to have a low-density character, with low building heights, and a high proportion of open space. It is also recognised that “the development of new housing and associated development with a high density including buildings of greater height and scale can compromise the character of the residential environments,” and this is an issue that has been identified as a concern through the Local Outcomes consultative process with the community.

There are two policies under this objective which are particularly relevant to the character of residential areas: Policy 1 and Policy 3. Policy 1 requires that activities operating in residential areas “display a residential appearance and be at a density which enables the existing character to be maintained”, and that activities should not result in an “imposition of buildings, structures, signs or other features that are visually obtrusive and out of character with the character of these environments.” Policy 3 aims to avoid adverse effects arising from building height on the amenity and character of residential areas. It is noted that “the height of buildings is crucial to the character of the district’s residential environments. The purpose of this policy is to ensure new buildings and additions are kept in scale with the low rise, low density character of the surrounding area.”

Objective 3 is also relevant, as it provides for the medium density housing in “appropriate locations throughout the District in a way that is consistent with the maintenance of the character and amenity values of the Kāpiti Coast.”

Policies 1 and 4 under this objective are relevant to maintaining the existing character of residential areas. Policy 1 aims to ensure that “suitable and compatible location, height, density, scale, and bulk of Medium Density Housing relative to their context...” Policy 4 requires that medium density housing developments in the district “maintain the amenity values and character of existing environments by assessing applications against the extent to which they are compatible with their adjacent development and do not dominate or otherwise sits incongruously in their built environment, including materials and finishing.” Apart from land in the immediate vicinity of the Raumati Beach Village Centre and identified in Plan Change 74, it is not envisaged that further medium density development is appropriate in Raumati Beach.

Building Development Controls The permitted activity standards for residential areas are set out in D.1.2.1. Under these standards and the permitted activity rules in D.1.1.1 it is a permitted activity to construct a building in a residential area where there is:

a maximum site coverage of 40%;


up to four dwellings on a lot (provided there is 450m² site area for each front dwelling and 550m² for rear dwellings);

a maximum height of 8m;

compliance with the recession plane height envelope;

an outdoor living area of at least 40m² is provided, and screened by vegetation of at least 1.5m in height;

at least 30% permeable surfaces on site (i.e. not buildings or paving);

a minimum set back of 4.5m from a road boundary;

for front sites a minimum 3m rear yard, one 3m side yard, and all other yards a minimum of 1.5m;

for rear sites all yards a minimum of 3m.

In addition, the maximum permitted height of a boundary fence is 1.8m on road frontages and 2m on all other boundaries, and there are also some restrictions on the removal of indigenous vegetation. Non-residential activities are to include landscaping with indigenous plants along the front boundary and around parking areas, and shall have no more than 40m of continuous length parallel to and closer than 10m from road boundaries. All earthworks within 2m of the footprint of a new structure are also a permitted activity.

Subdivision Controls Under the Residential Zone subdivision in Raumati Beach and Raumati South is a controlled activity if the following minimum lot standards are met:

450m² for front lots

550m² for rear lots (exclusive of access).

Where a site greater than 3000m² is subdivided the following controlled activity standards apply:

For front lots at least 50% of total lots shall be 550m² in size;

For front lots at least 25% of total lots shall be 700m²;

For rear lots at least 50% of total lots shall be 650m²;

For rear lots at least 25% of total lots shall be 800m².

For infill subdivision where topographic features or the existing built environment would make compliance with the above standards impracticable, the minimum lot size (including access) is 450m². There is also a minimum frontage of 6m for front lots, to restrict the creation of very narrow lots.

Subdivisions (including infill) with minimum lot sizes of at least 350m² which do not comply with the controlled activity standards are discretionary activities, so long as each site can accommodate a 12m diameter circle.


Current District Plan Provisions versus ‘Character Assessment’ Findings: Summary In relation to the basic ‘bulk and location’ provisions, the comparison between the current District Plan provisions and the findings of the character study for Raumati shows that:

predominant site coverage is lower than the current provision

building height patterns are overall comparable with the current provisions. However where new two storey development has a larger building footprint it could compromise the low key character of the area, particularly if located on a prominent/elevated site.

current yard requirements are generally comparable with the siting of building with the exception of front yards where some structures, in particular garages, are located in the front yard.

In relation to subdivision and earthworks, the assessment shows that:

current provisions for min lot size are generally lower than the predominant lot size patterns. However up to 75%-85% of Raumati could potentially be further subdivided to a minimum of 350m²/300m² through compliance with the Discretionary Activity infill subdivision provisions

earthworks in some instances have created flat building sites which has altered the undulating character of the land.

Currently, the growth and development in the Raumati area are managed through ‘blanket’ District Plan provisions applicable to the area as a whole. The topographical differences and variation in lot size within the Focus Area, however, suggest that an area specific approach for managing future development might be more effective in maintaining essential character attributes. Here special reference is made to ‘min lot size’ requirements, site coverage and earthworks, including maintaining existing vegetation.

To maintain the existing character patterns design guidelines which include qualitative criteria in addition to District Plan rules should be considered. The focus would be on managing the relationship between built and natural form and ensuring that the form, scale and overall design of new development fits in well with the existing low key character of the area and its landform. Such design guidelines could be applied to the entire Focus Area or alternatively only to the ‘special character’ parts of it.


5.2 ASSESSMENT

The comparison between the current District Plan provisions and the findings of the character assessment of Raumati is summarised in the following table.

Residential Rule Observations Recommendations

Maximum site coverage of 40% Site coverage is a good indicator of density. It also determines to some extent the area available for landscape treatment and tree-planting. Nearly half of the properties in the focus area have a site coverage below 20%. This partly explains the variability in built form and the existing low key/low density character.

Requiring a lower site coverage will help achieve Choosing Futures Local Outcomes of retaining the low density, generally low rise beach village feel and “that Raumati South continues to be known for relaxed low density living where the low density character, natural landforms and views of the beach are retained.” It will also help to “maintain the low rise, large section sizes, trees and ‘higgledy piggledy’ location of houses that give character.”

Lowering the standard from 40% to 35% is consistent with other towns such as Wellington city and given the current character of the townships this is not unreasonable.

Change the maximum site coverage from 40% to 35% and consider the use of a plot ratio to reduce the bulky appearance of buildings.

Maximum height of 8m While most buildings are within the permitted height limits, a number of new dwellings appear to be higher and out of character with the rest of the townships, especially if they have a large footprint and/or a prominent location. To retain the low key, low scale ‘built form’ character a limit on the number of storeys should be required. Bulk issues for large buildings on prominent sites can be effectively managed through design guidelines.

That the 8m maximum height be amended to limit the number of storeys to two. To address potential issues of bulk, design guidelines can be an effective tool and should be considered.



Compliance with the recession plane height envelope

No concerns with meeting this standard. No change

An outdoor living area of at least 40m² is provided, and screened by vegetation of at least 1.5m in height


At least 30% permeable surfaces on site (i.e. not buildings or paving)

There was evidence that in some cases this standard was not met. It is a very difficult standard to monitor and enforce. Having at least 30% permeable surface, if put into effect, will encourage more vegetation. Education is potentially a very effective method in achieving compliance. Consideration should be given to including ways of achieving this standard through a design guide.

Include landscaping examples in a design guide to encourage compliance as well as to promote retention of existing vegetation.

A minimum set back of 4.5m from a road boundary

Building setbacks from the street are highly variable and strongly influenced by the landform. Greater setbacks occur on steep sites, while in the older parts of Raumati South there are a number of baches that are well within the 4.5m front yard. Allowing living areas closer to the street has a number of benefits and will help retain the eclectic and variable character of built form.

Minimal or nil setbacks are typically associated with garages. While this can be problematic with vehicles overhanging the footpath, it can at the same time limit earthworks and reduce the extent of hard surface/driveway areas. Given the variable topography of the area, managing the location of garages and the siting of new dwellings is best achieved through design guidelines

Retain 4.5m setback but allow flexibility to reduce the setback to achieve consistency with existing patterns and the character of the landform through design guidelines.

For front sites a minimum 3m rear yard, one 3m side yard, and all other yards a minimum of 1.5m




For rear sites all yards a minimum of 3m


Maximum permitted height of a boundary fence is 1.8m on road frontages and 2m on all other boundaries.

Most frontages have no or low height fences. Where they are built to the 1.8m height, they present a barrier to the street. A lower height limit is recommended to avoid properties “fencing themselves” off from the community. Privacy can be attained through planting.

Reduce the height of the front fence to 800mm and apply this standard to the front yard. Encourage (through design guidelines) the use of planting as a means of delineating the front boundary instead of a hard fence.

Exemption of earthworks standard within 2.0 m beyond the foundation line of the building associated with approved building developments subject to a building consent.

There has been some cases of earthworks associated with new building developments significantly altering the character of the landform through levelling of the site. The exemption to the earthworks standard was included in the District Plan to reduce the need for resource consents at the building stage. It was considered that the shape and form of the land was largely controlled and determined at the subdivision stage.

For Raumati Beach and Raumati South, however, most of the lots were created before controls (such as consent notices on titles to manage earthworks) and other matters on an ongoing basis were available or required by Council. The damage done now to the landform and its undulating character is at the building consent stage. To ensure consideration is given to retaining the landform and to encourage buildings to fit into the dune landforms this exemption should be removed from areas where the underlying dune is largely intact i.e. the identified ‘Special Character Areas’ in the Focus Area.

That the exemption to the earthworks standard for new building work be removed from the Special Character Areas in Raumati Beach and Raumati South. The use of design guidelines to site buildings to fit into the dune landforms and to retain where appropriate the undulating dune landform.



Subdivision controlled for front lots of 450m² and rear lots of 550m² on sewered land.

Sites greater than 3000m² can be subdivided as Controlled Activities as set out above.

Infill subdivision require minimum lot sizes of 450m² for Controlled Activities where topography makes compliance with the above impracticable.

Discretionary Activity subdivision requires a minimum of 350m², provided a 12m diameter circle can be accommodated.

Up to 75% of Raumati could potentially be further subdivided to a minimum of 350m² through compliance with the Discretionary Activity infill subdivision provisions. This assumes that there is sufficient space to access rear lots and that the width of the sections will allow 12m wide lots. If this potential was taken up, it would irreversibly alter the low rise and low density character of Raumati Beach and Raumati South. The predominant underlying landform, to provide house sites, and much of the existing vegetation which covers approximately 25% of the land would be lost. Limits on further subdivision, in particular areas with greatest undulating and vegetated character should be considered.

Amend to limit higher density subdivision in the ‘special character areas’ similar to Plan Change 77. i.e. reducing the average variable lot size for Controlled Activity subdivision to 700m2 and making subdivision creating lots less than 450m2 a Non-Complying Activity.

5.3 OTHER MATTERS: STREET UPGRADES, COASTAL HAZARD REVIEW AND DESIGN GUIDELINES

Street upgrades The current policy on retrofitting of streets with kerb and channel being ‘provided if at least a majority of local residents agree and having at least one footpath on one side of each street’ should be reviewed. Many of the streets with the most pronounced beach like character have wide grassed berms with no kerb and channel or footpath. Apart from being an unnecessary cost to build and maintain, ‘upgrading’ these streets will result in a streetscape that is inconsistent with the existing beach character of the settlement.

Coastal Hazard Review Given the unique character of properties fronting the beach with the undulating topography and a large number of low height buildings, consideration should be given in the review of coastal hazards to including an amenity setback in addition to responding to the coastal hazard.

Design Guidelines Most parts of the Raumati focus area, have maintained much of the undulating landform. However, more recent subdivisions in the wider area have been less sensitive to the underlying topography. As a whole existing buildings relate well to the


landform. Prominent clusters of mature vegetation, typically found on steep sites and larger sections, enhance further the relationship between natural and built form.

Future subdivision, development or redevelopment of existing larger sections or areas with more sensitive landform could undermine essential attributes of the local character. The amendments recommended to the District Plan will go some way towards retaining this unique character. However not all development aspects can be “legislated for” and encapsulated in rules and standards. Rather, this can be effectively achieved by promoting positive development outcomes through area-specific design guidelines. In this case retaining the existing low scale built character in redevelopment, building sensitively within the landform and retaining well vegetated areas should be the main focus of the guidelines.


6 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

District Plan That the District Plan Residential zone provisions be amended as follows:

1. Amend the following permitted activity standards:

a. In the Focus Area change the maximum site coverage from 40% to 35% and consider the use of a plot ratio to reduce the bulky appearance of buildings.

b. In the Focus Area amend the 8m maximum height to limit the number of storeys to two.

c. In the Special Character Areas in Raumati Beach and Raumati South reduce the height of the front fence to 800mm and apply this standard to the entire front yard.

d. That the exemption to the earthworks standard for new building work be removed from the Special Character Areas in Raumati Beach and Raumati South.

2. Amend to limit higher density subdivision in the ‘Special Character Areas’ similar to Plan Change 77. i.e. reduce the average variable lot size for Controlled Activity subdivision to 700m2 and make subdivision creating lots less than 450m2 a Non-Complying Activity.

Design Guides That design guides are developed with pictorial examples to encourage development to retain the local character and enhance the relationship between natural and built form. Key matters to be addressed include:

Building location (siting of dwellings and garages) with a particular emphasis on frontage setbacks and relationship to landform (e.g. flexibility to reduce setback from the road boundary to achieve consistency with existing patterns; manage sting of buildings to fit into the dune landforms and to retain where appropriate the undulating dune landform and existing vegetation)

Building bulk, form and scale - enhance relationship between neighbouring dwellings (new building forms should fit in); manage building bulk of larger dwellings

Building design & appearance and local character - design techniques for achieving positive relationship between new and old

Open space and landscaping - provide advice on landscaping, include good landscaping examples to encourage compliance with the ‘permeability’ standard as well as to promote retention of existing vegetation

Building relationship to the street - encourage the use of planting as a means of delineating the front boundary instead of a hard fence.


Street Upgrades Identify local character streets which have no kerb and channel and no or only one footpath and which are an integral part of the area’s character. Review policy on upgrading and retrofitting of character streets to retain existing beach like character.

Coastal Hazard Review In addition to responding to the coastal hazard in the review of coastal hazards include a minimum amenity setback.

raumati / character assessment · 1 introduction 1 1.1 scope of character assessment 1 1.2...

Documents