|
 Plans to build two houses in the sand dunes at Owhiti Bay on Waiheke’s pristine north-eastern coastline have been overturned by the Environment Court.
The developers had claimed that the buildings on the dunes would be of minimal visual impact, but the Court said the house’s 98-metre frontage would significantly impact the current character of the beach.
“That is a fairly significant front face in any terms and was variously estimated in the hearing to amount to a fifth or a sixth of the length of the beach,” said Environment Court Judge Laurie Newhook.
“Construction of buildings in the bay would fundamentally recast Owhiti Bay as a modified bay, in strong contrast to its present quality of outstanding naturalness.”
The Auckland Regional Council had appealed the planning decision by Auckland City which last year granted Man O’War Station and associated companies permission to build a 570 sq metre house and a freestanding guesthouse among mature pohutukawa trees on the bay’s 40 metre coastal protection yard.
ARC chairman Mike Lee said this week the council was extremely pleased with the decision and he was proud of the ARC’s role.
“Had the ARC not made a stand at Owhiti it would have led inevitably to the progressive loss of the whole lovely northeastern coastline which would have been studded with trophy houses,” he said.
“Already the applicants are attempting to overturn a decision declining another large building at nearby Cactus Bay.
“Owhiti is especially precious because of the ancient Polynesian archaeological site which lies within the sand dunes and is one of Waiheke’s special places.
 ARC chairman Mike Lee and Waiheke-based historian Paul Monin visited Owhiti before the Environment Court hearing earlier this year.
The 1800 hectare farm has been owned by the Spencer family for 30 years and the Owhiti house had been intended as an accommodation base for family members while on Waiheke. The buildings were also to be a venue for marketing wine produced from the property’s vineyards. It had been estimated that it would have about 160 visitors a year and would provide a marketing ‘wow’ factor for the wine products.
At the same hearing, the property’s owners were also appealing the Auckland City Council decision, asking the court to modify or cancel various conditions imposed by Auckland City Council’s planning commissioners when considering and ultimately allowing the application to construct the buildings within Owhiti’s coastal protection yard.
The conditions of the consent included such suggestions as a sandmat rather than sealed surface for vehicle access to protect the dunes and archaeological remains. The development was deemed to exceed maximum lot coverage and earthworks controls and the proposal involved modifying a site of ecological and identified archaeological significance.
Judge Newhook and environment commissioners R M Dunlop and K Prime last week ruled that issues that came into particular focus in the case included whether or not the bay and its surrounds comprised an outstanding natural landscape, the heritage and cultural significance of the landscape and archaeological features, and the potential effect of the proposed buildings.
The Court also considered effects likely to accrue from the proposed mitigation through stock proof fencing, revegetation and weed and pest management.
The Resource Management Act says that the natural character of the coastal environment, outstanding natural features and landscapes and historic heritage should be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development and Judge Newhook said that the ARC’s counsel D Kirkpatrick was right in criticising the suggestion from Man O’War Station that these provisions needed to be ‘balanced’.
“We agree with Mr Kirkpatrick that no item ‘trumps’ any other, and each case must be judged according to its merits, recognising that in some cases particular factors will be more significant than others,” said Judge Newhook.
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act and the ARC’s policy statement also required a ‘precautionary’ approach and that outstanding landscapes be protected by avoiding “subdivision, use and development that cannot be accommodated within the landscape without affecting the character, aesthetic value and integrity of the landscape as a whole.”
Along with the overall coastal landscape, the dramatic coastline, strong landforms and substantial areas of indigenous vegetation along the eastern end of the island beyond Pie Melon Bay, Owhiti Bay with its bush-clad rocky headlands at each end and relatively open beachfront differed by being free of built development, said Judge Newhook.
“There is very little in the Owhiti Bay landscape that exhibits the hand of man in terms of organisation” and the Court accepted that the stretch of coast between Woodlands Bay and Thumb Point satisfied both dictionary and case law definitions of ‘outstanding’ and ‘natural’.
“The beach area is highly sensitive to almost any form of development, particularly when viewed from the sea” and the Court did not accept the Man O’ War Station counsel’s contention for “visual absorption of building development in the bay”.
The judge said the proposed house would “sit heavily on the landscape”, in contrast to the beachfront, dunes and grassed slopes, and the importation of the intended “gun emplacement or bunker” form would be emphatic and negative. “The connotation of such forms imported to the beachfront would be irrelevant at best and unfortunate, even discordant, in our view.”
However, even some more transparent and lightweight structure would not alleviate the length of the facade and its ruler-like geometry would create a solidity, regardless of building mass.
The only permitted activity in the Gulf’s proposed district plan for the area is eco-sourced planting.
In terms of historic heritage, Judge Newhook pointed out – with emphasis – that six archaeologists attended a caucusing meeting as directed by the Court to endeavour to reach points of agreement. However, the points apparently agreed were almost immediately in dispute as archaeologists clarified that they were not in support of the building of the houses at the western end of the beach but had merely considered that area better than others.
ARC counsel had said that the archaeological value of the site was much higher than the applicant would accept.
Evidence by Waiheke historian Paul Monin had showed Owhiti was one of the principal Maori settlements on Waiheke, pointing particularly to the presence of the Ngati Paoa Rangatira, Te Karamu Kahukoti, after about 1840.
There was dispute in the evidence about how many archaeological ‘anomalies’ were in fact present and potentially intact, said the judge, but it seemed to be agreed that the inconclusiveness of that would remain in the absence of ground testing. The question appeared to be ‘does one destroy a site to gain knowledge about it?’
Counsel had said the heritage values were high and should be considered of national importance.
Judge Newhook concluded: “It is clear to us that consent must be refused, and it is.” • Liz Waters
|
